User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 12

Welcome back
Hi BatteryIncluded, welcome back! This is MX (or ComputerJA, as I used to be known). I hope everything is running smoothly with you. Feel free to reach out if you ever need me. I'll be around! Un abrazo, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Flyby of Io with Repeat Encounters
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web pages http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/2874.pdf, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/2874.pdf, and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117717303484). Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The list of goals of the mission were attributed to its source. By the way, would you mind spending time reviewing or deleting this page?: "Modern Mars habitability". Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

CAESAR NF4 proposal
The following are the only documents I can provide regarding the so called "CAESAR" proposal They're one of the more secretive proposal teams, and I have no clue what acronym CAESAR is for (or if it even is one). The CAESAR proposal is led by Steve Squyres, and it has been slightly mentioned in some places, such as here, as the 'third comet sample return proposal'
 * https://blogs.cornell.edu/hayesgroup/files/2017/03/CV_Alexander_G_Hayes-29u8x6o.pdf
 * http://www.comet-toolbox.com/vincent/media/CV_Vincent_2016.pdf

Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping out! It looks like this is Squyres proposal for a subsystem that can be used for a comet sample acquisition and sample return. The document you show mentions Squyres as a "payload" lead:

− CAESAR (Comet Sample Return) [NASA New Frontiers 4 Proposal] Payload Lead / Successor PI (PI is Steven Squyres, Cornell University)


 * I think CAESAR is a subsystem/payload for a comet mission, not a whole mission concept. I looked at the papers on CONDOR and CORSAIR and Squyres is not in the list of authors. Furthermore, please look at this presentation: and the description is: "[...] mature technologies such that they can be included as part of a selectable, low risk mission concept proposal submitted in response to the NF (New Frontiers) AO (Announcement of Opportunity). His proposal is titled: "Sample Acquisition and Containment for Comet Surface Sample Return" (SACCSSR). A subsystem.  Looks like CAESAR is a loose mnemonic for SACCSSR that 'sounds like' CAESAR.  I think we are still missing one mission of the quoted 12. I heard the same in a NASA forum. What say you?  Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * First, I'm convinced that our mysterious 12th proposal is a comet sample return mission, regardless of its name. Van Kane's article, and in the nasaspaceflight.com forum page you mentioned: "[...] He said in the article that at least three groups are proposing comet sample return missions.", both claim that there are three different comet sample return proposals.
 * From here I'm afraid there isn't much information out in the open and have to rely on assumptions. I would like to note that in the presentation you provided, Lori Glaze, who currently leads the VICI proposal is also listed as PI of a 'Venus Entry Probe Prototype'. The presentation covers 'near-term tech dev' to assist future NF4 proposals, and I believe the fact that Squyres' name is on it as a PI doesn't necessarily mean he's still an instrument PI. And about the document I provided, I interpret it means that not Squyres, but 'Alexander Gerard Hayes' is Payload Lead / Successor PI of CAESAR (just as Hayes is the Deputy PI of Oceanus, and Co-I of Dragonfly, according to the next page). So I'd say Squyres is likely leading the 12th proposal. Regardless of that, I believe it's safe to assume Squyres is not part of either CONDOR or CORSAIR, but is a member of a third team. I can only hope some additional information comes out to clarify the 12th proposal... Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be right because Squyres is very industrious and influential (Decadal Chair) and I don't think he would settle for a subsystem proposal. I am detached now from the people from APL so I don't hear the inside roumors any more. If you want to place the CAESAR red link back in the template I won't opose that. Thank you. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * An interesting article recently came out. Venus Origins Explorer New Frontiers Proposal Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great update and good catch! Knowing the name will be easier to monitor for future information. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * NASA is schedueled to announce the NF4 finalists real soon, on Wednesday. NASA to Name Finalists for Future Solar System Mission Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The Mars architecture article for SpaceX
Hey Batt. Thanks for noticing my edits to generalize that article.

I think the (oftentimes) odd naming conventions of SpaceX had kind of hidden what that article was really most about. And even though the prose indicated rather clearly it was about "the system" and not the LVs, it sorta/kinda had a name that confused most readers, and even many editors.

The new release of a second set of designs for launch vehicles and spacecraft, quite different from the 2016 LVs/spacecraft, has made that more apparent now. So
 * last ten months : some confusion between the Interplanetary Transport System article ( the system and architecture) and the ITS launch vehicle (the specific set of three vehicles Musk announced a year ago to realize that vision and comply with his architecture).
 * now : clearly one system/Mars arch article, with two articles discussing the different major designs that SpaceX has produced so far to realize that vision: BFR (late 2017 ff.) and ITS launch vehicle (2016 into mid-2017)

Will appreciate your eyes reading through that prose, and making some edits as well. There's plenty more to do.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is easy to get hang up on the names (needed in Wikipedia), so in this case, I think instead of creating new sections or articles, we can refer to them as the initial vs. current concepts — whenever possible. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, true. I remember a discussion where someone active in WikiProject Spaceflight, and also WikiProject Aviation, who was also a wiki admin said in an article debate (about some spaceplane concept, I believe):
 * "Heck, in Wikipedia, you can have a  bona fide article on a model airplane made out of balsa wood, just as long as it is notable and meets WP:GNG."
 * YMMV, but in my view the rocket design that was presented a year ago at IAC2016 (3x as large in Mars throw weight, and roughly that in payload to LEO, relative to the public-last-week new design, the one Musk says he still working on a name so the codename is BFR) is quite article worthy. The new one (BFR) will clearly have an article on it; heck, it is SpaceX one and only new rocket archtecture now, for all missions.
 * My view is that the (very different design) ITS launch vehicle was a hugely notable Mars concept design. >100 news articles in established media sources covered it; tons of phosphor have been burned up and many digital displays have died just reading it all.  Combining the article on that older design with the new one would either
 * 1) lose a lot of the encyclopedic information Wikipedia has on that design during the year of its existence, before it became officially and publically, merely a proposed design in 2016-2017; or
 * 2) it will take up way too much of the article space on the new rocket, the BFR rocket, if it is not heavily cut. That would look odd.  But option one is worse.  The BFR article will certainly grow to become a large article in its own right.  Which will put these pressures to do no. 1 and cut away good information.
 * I think either option is not good. Best to just leave it an article with a scope to describe a very very notable and widely-covered rocket design, one in development for a period of a year or so, and then SpaceX decided it didn't have enough money to build it, and decided to design another rocket.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * TL;DR. In short, if you don't get the "scope" right in Wikipedia, which often starts with getting a descriptor in place to explicate notable information, then it is hard for Wikipedia to be the "encyclopedia of human knowledge" that it sets out to be.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia is lucky to have you straighten and update the SpaceX [complex] concepts and projects. It is a very dynamic article and a complex subject. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I need help.  I took a day job that is eating me up for 60+ hours each week.  If you look at my Wiki contribs, they fell when I did that to less than 10% of what they had been before.


 * Really need other interested editors to help. And especially to get involved in Talk page discussions to build consensus ongetting the articles where they need to go.  e.g., Talk:BFR and on the main Interplanetary Transport System article (not the ITS launch vehicle), I'm wondering if we should just rename it "SpaceX Mars architecture", since that is what it is about.  See what you think.  Propose it (or something better) if you wish.  (Might stop some of the confusion on the name of the old launch vehicle design, ITS launch vehicle, with the overall system, ITS.  Who knows.  I'm running out of gas on it.  N2e (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to stay away from "discussions", as I'm burned out with the fanatics and a few incompetent administrators. My advice is to relax and take your time. The subject itself is dynamic and the article will fall in place in due time. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"Art of the Nature Timelines on Wikipedia"
IF Interested, stumbled across a worthy website (imo) recently - at the following => "Art of the Nature Timelines on Wikipedia" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Phobosgate
I suppose I should speak with you about this. The editor you know as Starkiller88 has recently appeared on RationalWiki, mostly to make edits related to the Fobos-Grunt space mission. Dianaa didn't know anything about this, so I figured I'd ask you: What the hell is "Phobosgate?" No one on RW knows what he's talking about, and I'd rather hear about it from a perspective other than Starkiller's. Thanks, RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , That individual was banned from Wikipedia long ago, after he suffered a psychological breakdown (and denial) when Fobos-Grunt mission failed at launch. Just before that, he also created an autobiography here, so his real name was revealed. He volunteered elsewhere in the internet about suffering of mental disorder(s), and of being infected with computer viruses by Wiki editors (such as myself), as well as attempting his murder through lethal kittens -I am not joking. Just like you, I have been contacted by other users from other forums, where he has been banned as well for strange behavior. He is trully mentally unstable, and extremely persistent. He cannot understand Fobos-Grunt crashed and that was its end. He sort of thinks it is some kind of conspiracy against him. Don't waste your time. He is not rational. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I ask you what the hell Phobosgate is. Phobosgate is [|the absurd episode], and Vladimir Putin has caused the mission to fail and crash and that was its end.


 * Just wanted to check. Thank you! RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I knew we were all goners when Donald Trump was elected by the Electoral College, evangelicals and conservatives like you. I think it is the beginning of the end of us, thanks to Phobosgate.


 * And you are going to say: "Wah wah wah. Get over it snowflake. He's YOUR president. He's only protecting you from people like you.", saying that Donald Trump is our president, and "you" is me of course. You are going to call me a "liberal crybaby".


 * And, you say: "These Democrats lost long ago, after they suffered a psychological breakdown (and denial)..." and Brexit, and so on..


 * By the record, I am anti-Trump, anti-Russia and anti-Putin, part of # TheResistance, not a snowflake. Computers (and the age of computer) are not causing my behaviour that is a bannable offense of other forums. You don't mess up with liberals off-wiki. You don't bother protecting Donald Trump (and Vladimir Putin) as President. # TheResistance 2001:E68:5435:2E90:9585:FF15:2AF0:28C4 (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

, see above. It is all a world-wide conspiracy. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Woolly mammoth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clone ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Woolly_mammoth check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Woolly_mammoth?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Far-Infrared Surveyor
You probably want a disambiguation rather than blanking.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. The Far-Infrared Surveyor is a newly proposed observatory by NASA, and somehow it redirects to a Japanese spacecraft of a different name: Akari (satellite). I don't know how to fix that.  I will be creating the actual Far-Infrared Surveyor article later this week, so I'd appreciate your help.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The STDT Far-Infrared Surveyor mission proposal is now known as the Origins Space Telescope (OST), similar to how the X-Ray Surveyor proposal is now called Lynx. (Here's a recent slide about the STDT proposals) For the Japanese Akari mission, Far-Infrared Surveyor (FIS) was the name of one of its onboard instruments. Hope this helps clarify things. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was researching that last night and taking notes in my sandbox. Yes, Goddard and CalTech call it so, at least their version/concept. (Many teams are working on that because it would be a "large" Flagship mission, and they call it Far-Infrared Surveyor.) Do you suggest to name the new article "Far-Infrared Surveyor", or "Origins Space Telescope"? -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of proposals other than Origins for the Far-Infrared Surveyor mission frame, so I think those two are synonymous (but then I could be wrong. Past proposals such as SAFIR, CALISTO aren't competing, but they have been reflected in the formulation of OST). A presentation by Paul Hertz, NASA astrophysics division director lists HabEx, LUVOIR, Lynx and Origins as the four large concept study for the decadal survey. The true competition is the one between these four proposals (I don't expect all four of them to make it on the decadal survey final report, as the cost for flagship missions are ballooning), and there's also internal competition within the OST proposal. There are two OST mission concepts existing in parallel, and there's several instrument study teams working separately. An European team led by CNES is formulating a heterodyne spectrometer called HERO, and a Ames-JAXA team is studying an instrument in the mid-IR range called MISC. JPL is leading the Medium-Res Survey Spectrometer (MRSS) instrument study, and there are two more groups in Goddard. As for the name, I'd vote for Origins Space Telescope, as that is the name for an actual mission proposal, rather than Far-Infrared Surveyor which seems more broad a topic. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Somehow I missed that presentation by Hertz on my web searches. Thank you for the link. I included it in the article. Good night. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

, Details of the mission Enceladus Life Signatures and Habitability (ELSAH) are still confidential, but its PI, Cristopher McKay, just published a paper stating his priority of an orbiter to sample the water plumes for biosignatures, specially for aminoacids, and he details the science he envisions: . But for now, the WP article has to remain a vague stub. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly created articles
Hi, nice job with your newly created content (ex: Mapping Imaging Spectrometer for Europa)! Have you considered nominating them to Did You Know? Your area of expertise is under-represented there. DYK is also a great place to increase article views and get your stuff copyedited by a large pool of editors (both IP and registered). This was my most-recent DYK nomination. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Plasma Instrument for Magnetic Sounding
Hello! Your submission of Plasma Instrument for Magnetic Sounding at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

EQUULEUS & OMOTENASHI
The latest design of OMOTENASHI is a combination of an airbag and crushable material, instead of the original two-airbag design.  This might be useful. And found an article featuring some interesting images. Although they were both first intoduced as a joint JAXA-University of Tokyo project, I'm under the impression that OMOTENASHI is almost entirely an JAXA (ISAS) project, while EQUULEUS is a Univ. of Tokyo (ISSL) led project with minor assistance from JAXA and others.(I'll look for refs of this)

Always amazed at how fast you create new articles. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Working on OMOTENASHI now. Thanks for the refs. Yes some diagrams show it will have 2 airbags, and looks like a dumbell shape. Too bad I cant use JAXA images, and I am not good at creating diagrams. -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * EQUULEUS doesn't have solar electric ion engines, as the water resistojet thrusters AQUARIUS refers not only to the four reaction control system thrusters, but also the two primary Delta-v thrusters. (Confusingly, in the case of ISSL's previous spacecraft called PROCYON, both the primary thruster and the RCS thrusters were ion engines, called I-COUPS).


 * The OMOTENASHI team dropped the dumbbell design, opting to use only one airbag and replacing the second one with crushable material. (I heard the spacecraft was too small to fit two airbags inside, so they decided to use crushable material, which coincidentally JAXA began researching a few years ago.) Here's the old version of the OMOTENASHI homepage featuring the dumbbell spacecraft shape, and this is the current version of it (they even replaced the mission patch).
 * And the page 'JAXA相模原キャンパス特別公開2017' that I previously linked, it's NOT an official JAXA page, it's an news article (although it looks more like a blog post). Just wanting to avoid any mix-ups.
 * Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In the EQUULEUS PDF document at the bottom of, there is an sneaky comparison with PROCYON and that was the source of my mistake. Regarding the OMOTENASHI airbag(s) I guess we have to go by the dates. If the latest papers mention a single airbag then that is it.  Thank you for the note, but in the future please feel free to correct the articles directly. I won't be offended. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: the synergy. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Luna-Glob Program?
The Russian Lunar effort is complicating, but below is my rough understanding based on this page

Originally, there were two missions: the 'Luna-Glob' orbiter mission, followed by the 'Luna-Resurs' lander/rover mission. Then in 2012, it turned out that 'Luna-Resurs' was too heavy to be launched on a GSLV Mk II rocket, thus it was rechristened as the 'Luna-Glob lander'. It was to be followed by the 'Luna-Glob orbiter', and a newly designed joint Russia-India 'Luna-Resurs lander'. These three missions are the basis of today's Luna-25, 26 and 27.

The Luna-Glob page itself is rather obsolete. I don't think the Russians refer to their whole Moon program as 'Luna-Glob Programme', as the 'Luna-Glob' moniker was used for the mission that precedes the Luna-Resurs lander (Luna-27). Luna-28, 29 are part of the 'Luna-Grunt' sample return program. I'm not entirely sure they even have an clear name for their program like the Chinese CLEP, but just call it something like Lunar program. Perhaps we can call it Luna programme, although I believe this isn't a good compromise as 'Luna programme' usually refers to the Soviet Moon probes from decades ago.

I can always be wrong, and I'm welcome to corrections and relevant documents that prove me otherwise. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I guess I'm going to leave that program alone. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ET found on ISS?
FWIW - Of possible interest => < ref name="CNET-20171128"> - and - < ref name="SLT-20171128"> - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I'd like to see a peer-reviewed research article on that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - agreed - also - another ref of possible interest => < ref name="ARX-20171106">

Vid Flumina
Hi, I know you are interested in making space edits, I thought you would like to check out an article I created about a year ago about a river of methane/ethane on Titan called Vid Flumina. You might be able to help expand and improve it.Spidersmilk (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Earliest direct evidence of life on Earth?
If interested, added the following text/refs to several relevant articles (including the following: Abiogenesis, Earliest known life forms, Earth, Evolution, Life, Microorganism, 2017 in science) =>

'''A December 2017 report stated that 3.45 billion year old Australian rocks once contained microorganisms, the earliest direct evidence of life on Earth. '''

Entirely ok w/ me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edits - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

, it may be entirely ok with you if everybody else has to remove, cut down, or otherwise tidy up you edits, but once again you are basically spamming some not terribly well cited material across multiple articles. Neither of these two refs is a scientific paper, and both of them refer to the same work (which is what you should have cited), so there's frankly no point using both of them. You have also adopted a breathless tone along the journalistic "At 13:07 pm on the 29th of February 1901, professor Blogstorm excitedly announced that he might have found the world's oldest fossil".[ref fossblog.unreliable.flaky.ru] It really isn't good enough, and even worse you've done it in the lead section of some articles. Please calm down and consider what might actually be helpful to the encyclopedia. At the moment you're making a mess for us to tidy up, basically, and no, it's not "entirely ok". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinions - but please WP:NPA - AFAIK - adding material in good faith to several relevant articles is common practice on Wikipedia (please see WP:COPYWITHIN; WP:NOATT; User talk:Drbogdan & related) - it's relatively easy to rv/rm/mv/ce edits, if needed, esp with only a brief edit in the few articles posted in this instance - the scientific study was noted in the cited news reports to have appeared in PNAS< ref name="PNAS-2017"> - yes - I agree - posting the edit in the body of some articles may be better - perhaps you (or others) can help with this - after all - according to WP:OWN, all content is edited collaboratively - as a joint effort - and hopefully - in good faith. Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * : I do not mean to attack your person, but the behaviour, which is to add doubtful material to many articles at once. You are certainly right that the PNAS paper would be a better source. Perhaps you could replace the refs you added with that citation in a spirit of seasonal goodwill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

JAXA's solar sail Trojan asteroid probe
Some clarifications about the matter.

First, JAXA hasn't approved this mission yet. It is a finalist for ISAS's 2nd Large-class mission in the 2020s (there are three Large-class science missions each decade, and for the 2020s the first is MMX, the third is expected to be SPICA, on the condition that it is a joint-mission with ESA). The other finalist is LiteBIRD, a CMB astronomy telescope. I heard recently that the selection is going to be in 2019(will look for refs for this).

This was originally a Trojan asteroid multi flyby mission, but apparently it's a sample return mission (My guess is that this is a reflection of Lucy being approved). DLR will supply a lander (a partnership similar to Hayabusa 2's MASCOT mini lander). It'll be equipped with a pneumatic drill, and once the samples are collected, the lander will ascend from the asteroid and dock to the Solar sail mother ship (What I don't really understand is how JAXA intend to do this, as the Solar sail is supposed to be spinning in quite a rate, thus would need some kind of specialized navigation and docking mechanism).

As far as I'm aware, there is no official, universal English name for this proposal. Some of the people involved call it Solar Power Sail, Trojan Asteroid Exploration, Trojan Asteroid Explorer, among others. The full Japanese name for this proposal is 'ソーラー電力セイル探査機による外惑星領域探査の実証' (roughly translated : Solar Power Sail Explorer to demonstrate outer planet realm exploration)

I'll later add refs that may be useful. Kind Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware that I still have to review if the term "proposed" is the same context in Japanese. This mission concept was produced a long time ago and it has been a go-no-go for many years. My guess is that it is still a basic concept without funds, but again, I just started my research 2 hr ago. Any help will he appreciated. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention it, but according to those involved in this, the spacecraft actually isn't a solar sail. The huge sail is for placing the solar arrays to generate the required power for the ion engines at Jupiter orbit. At the Trojan asteroids, there isn't a useful amount of pressure from sun light. So they're calling this method a 'Solar Power Sail'
 * More of a trivial fact, originally there were 5 candidates:
 * SOLAR-C (Solar astronomy, lost to LiteBIRD)
 * WISH (IR telescope, lost to LiteBIRD)
 * LiteBIRD (finalist)
 * Solar Power Sail Trojan mission (finalist)
 * Mars landing demonstration(lost to Trojan mission)
 * An ISAS committee downselected two proposals in 2015; a technology oriented mission (Solar power sail) and a science oriented mission (LiteBIRD). JAXA will ultimately choose which will fly.


 * government space committee handout about Solar Power Sail and LiteBIRD


 * Some materials :


 * Overview of mission

outdated, but mostly relevant
 * Ion engine
 * sampling mechanism on lander and in situ observations
 * opportunistic science obesrvations The mission will have some extra payloads, including the ALLADIN-2 dust counter, GAP-2 gamma-ray burst polarimeter, and EXZIT IR telescope for studying zodiacal light. specs of EXZIT
 * ISAS News 2017 January edition(has an interesting graphic of the Large-class missions)
 * ISAS News special issue about the transition from IKAROS to the Trojan asteroid mission
 * Youtube video of a public experiment for expanding one 'petal' of the solar sail (compare to IKAROS)


 * Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am going to put it down as a concept mission. I won't make it live in several days until I am sure of the chronology and status. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Juno is operating at Jupiter using solar power, so there is something to be said about a larger solar panel of 2,500 m2. Yes, I noticed they call it 'Solar Power Sail'. At first I thought it was a funky translation, but I verified that the sail is meant to have dual purpose: solar propulsion and solar panel. I read that the spacecraft will rely on the ion engine for the way back....I need to find that quote. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think that the [spinning] rendevouz of lander/mothership is possible because both have a matching cylindrical shape. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * poster may be the answer. According to it, after approaching the mother ship the lander will deploy an extendable boom, which has a magnet on the tip. Instead of a direct docking, the boom will first contact the mother ship, thus berthing the two spacecrafts together. The mother ship will then wind up the boom, tugging the lander closer until full docking is achieved. After that, a secondary boom will be extended from the lander, which contains the samples. As there will　be a rotational degree of freedom between the spacecrafts, a groove mechanism will be on the mothership. The lander will have a corresponding protrusion, and as the mothership tugs the lander closer, the groove and protrusion will fit with each other, thus securing the lander. Sounds challenging, but those make sense.
 * The ion engine intended for the mission is called 'μ10HIsp', which will have a higher specific impulse than the μ10 ion engine used on Hayabusa and Hayabusa 2. Hms1103 (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you know the name of the JAXA program? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * JAXA (or ISAS, to be exact) has three categories for science missions. They don't have a specific name like Discovery or New Frontiers, but just refer to them by their size (similar to ESA's L-class, M-class and S-class missions).
 * Solar Power sail belongs in the Strategic Large Missions (Strategic L-class) category, which selects 3 missions for each decade. Some examples are Hayabusa 2, Hitomi, and MMX. Then there's the so-called Competitively-chosen medium-sized focused missions (Competitive M-class), which sends 5 missions each decade. Hisaki, SLIM are examples. Finally there's Missions of Opportunity, which covers contributions to missions led by other agencies (like BepiColombo), and scientific instruments onboard the ISS. A rather bureaucratic system, some may regard.
 * Here are references. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * specs of μ10HIsp
 * A major difference between IKAROS and the Trojan mission is that while the entire spacecraft was spun around for IKAROS, for the latter apparently the center portion (the bus and most of the scientific instruments) won't be spinning. If the whole spacecraft was spinning, the thrust vector of the ion engines will be restricted and the effective ΔV will be limited. As a solution, only the sail portion will be spun as it needs it to maintain its stretched state, and the electricity generated from the sail will be transmitted to the main portion of the spacecraft via a slip ring.　The sail and the main spacecraft section will be physically connected by guide lines, rollers and a rail-type rotational bearings. Figure 7 at the bottom of this poster has an image of this mechanism. On a side note, I assume the lifespan of the slip ring and bearings will decide how long the spacecraft will last in space, as it'll wear down over time. Considerable durability is necessary if the spacecraft is to really last for thirty years.
 * I believe they haven't officially chosen a target asteroid thus far. Every given year there are several candidate bodies, and 2001 DY103 is just one of them. The fact that it was used for simulating the spacecraft's trajectory doesn't guarantee that the mission will actually visit it. The target selection is highly dependent on when exactly the spacecraft will be launched (it's similar to how the PROCYON mission team announced their target asteroid only after launch). For example, I remember back in 2005 when the Solar sail team showed 588 Achilles as their target, and a few years later it was 2363 Cebriones. The most recent document I could find describes 2005 EL140. All of these are only candidates that are shown to give an general image of the actual asteroid the spacecraft will ultimately visit. Hms1103 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are correct in all accounts. Last night I read a document that states that in order for this mission to be competitive, it now has to plan for high value scientific results, so they are listing several complex scenarios involving different trajectories, double sails, several sizes (mass), in situ analysis without sample-return, and sampling with/without using a lander (eg. OSIRIS-REx style).  There are so many scenarios and targets to match, I will have to review the draft but without explaining all of the conceptual scenarios (too complex). And thanks for the link to the engine specs; I could not find anything in English last night. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of the old mission scenarios are still available, so I'll list them up so you can avoid them later on (there's really no need to include them in the article, as they're all invalid today, and the whole history is pretty confusing).
 * 2005 concept : Dubbed MUSES-D, this had a main 'clover-shape' solar sail mothership that will flyby multiple Trojan asteroid, and a solar sail daughter probe that will orbit Jupiter. Optional Jupiter entry capsule for the daughter probe.
 * 2010 concept : Main Solar sail for Trojan asteroid, and daughter solar sail for Jupiter (Jupiter Magnetospheric Orbiter)
 * 2012 concepts : along with the current Trojan asteroid sample return concept, there was the Trojan asteroid rendezvous / daughter solar sail Jupiter orbiter concept, and the Trojan asteroid rendezvous / interplanetary dust sample return concept. The latter two concepts were dropped.
 * 2012 Trojan asteroid sample return concept : No lander. The mother ship was to dangle an adhesive convex tape to the asteroid surface, which will then be wind up with the samples. A backup option was to drop dozens of 'sample collectors', and the mothership will retrieve as many of them in orbit once they come back. Both options now abandoned.
 * In the current proposal, the lander seems to be prerequisite, although I heard they're debating the sample return mission, since by abandoning that, they can send extra scientific instruments. The last time I heard (which is about a year ago), the consensus seemed to be that the lander will conduct in situ observations regardless of whether or not the sample return will be attempted. I am aware that some of the people involved want to send two spacecrafts, like the Vikings and the Voyagers. Not a mother ship / daughter ship combination, but two separate missions, launched a few years apart. Each will visit a different Trojan asteroid, and the first flight may be in situ study only, and the second will be a sample return mission. Or both flights could be sample return missions. (They seemed to have several options)
 * As I mentioned above, my knowledge is outdated by a year, so they may now be working on a new plan. New informations are welcome. Hms1103 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The launcher for this mission is most likely a H3, as the H-IIA is scheduled to retire in 2023.　The Japanese cabinet office's latest version of Basic Plan on Space Policy that came out this month allocates a H3 for the Solar Power Sail / LiteBIRD launch slot (the one labeled '戦略的中型 2').
 * While the ion engines will be used for attitude control, for spin axis control, the spacecraft will use an device called RCD (Reflectivity Control Device). By switching them on and off, the optical properties of the device changes, using liquid crystals (sort of like a LCD display). By turning power on and off consecutively, the spin rate of the sail can be adjusted. A good graphic showing how this works can be found on pages 19, 20 of this pdf.
 * Note that among the four instruments for science during the cruise phase, GAP-2 and EXZIT ( Exo-Zodiacal Infrared Telescope) aren't intended to be used for studying Trojan asteroids. The two are purely astronomical instruments, that will take advantage of the mission's trajectory. For GAP-2, the maximum 6AU distance from Earth makes it possible to locate the position of GRBs with high precision. For EXZIT, as zodiacal light gets significantly weak beyond the asteroid belt, it enables the telescope to observe the CIB for uncovering the comic dawn. MGF-2 is a successor of the MGF onboard the Arase satellite, and ALADDIN-2, GAP-2 are successors of the respective instruments onboard IKAROS. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Microstate v. micronation
Please take notice that there is a difference between a "ministate" (or "microstate") and a "micronation". The defining characteristic of a micronation is that it is "expressing a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty over some physical territory".

Asgardia claims that its satellite is a sovereign physical territory. Asgadia is therefore properly classified as a micronation. Please see the List of micronations.

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the difference and their definition. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Narrow infobox command
Thank you for showing me how to use the abbreviation command to reduce the length of items in the spacecraft infobox. I used that command to reduce "kilograms" to "kg". With the abbreviations turned on, the infobox is unnecessarily wide. Is there a command that can be put into the infobox that will make it 10 or 15 percent narrower? That would look better. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it can be narrowed on command. What I do is to keep the text brief and use breaks when necessary . Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I added a break command and manually entered the launch time. That made the columns of text more evenly spaced. It looks more balanced that way.  Thanks for the tip. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Exomars
Thanks! Nice job, and for the creation of the MOMA article. It is strange to rea the own name in the reference section. I try to get some images of the real hardware and the permission to donate them to wikipedia. --Stone (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to give me feedback on any ExoMars-related subject so that I can correct that article. By the way, do you know if they are still evaluating the inclusion of the scouting Micro Rover? . Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try, to help. The mini rover is new for me, but I am really a little blind due to the workload. It might be a possible addition to the landing platform. The upcoming Exomars Science Working Team Meeting in Moscow.--Stone (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you. I enjoy editing with you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Methane on Mars
IF Interested - seems the latest news about methane on Mars is at => < ref name="SCI-20180103"> - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , So their hypothesis is that methane variability depends on cosmic dust/meteorites/comets delivering chemicals to the atmosphere, which would synthetize it over several steps with the aid of UV radiation. It seems this methanogenesis mechanism is a long shot complex one, so we better wait for their observations and subsequent measurements & models before mentioning it in Wikipedia. Thanks for the update!!
 * By the way, I am surprised that the Curiosity rover sampled the atmosphere only 30 times during these years. I don't think it uses consumable reagents, so it seems very low sampling n and loss of opportunities. (Landed in August 2012 ≈ 5.5 years ago ≈ 66 months ago ≈ 1 sample every 2 months.) BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes - agree with your comments re their hypothesis (ie, a somewhat complex mechanism and all) - also yes - ok w/ me to wait and see for further developments before presenting on Wikipedia - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like they have been debating it for a while:, , . BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)