![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I believe the guy in the live stream said the touchdown was at 10:14:39 PDT (05:14:39 UTC). Kaldari ( talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, we now have definitive information and sourcing for the landing time. The 15:14:39 UTC (SCET) landing time currently used is definitely wrong, and the origin of the error has been identified. See the TALK page at the MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY for details. The landing time (with a definitive NASA source) should be: year 2012, day 219 (Aug. 6), time 05:17:57 Spacecraft UTC (that is, SpaceCraft Event Time, SCET). Translation into Event Received Time (ERT) on Earth involves knowing the One Way Lightspeed Time, which is approximately 14 minutes, but for which we do not yet have a well-sourced to-the-second number. We *do* have a well-sourced (NASA-sourced) approximate ERT landing time of 10:32pm PDT, and that's what should be used for now. All detailed references are in my notes in TALK/MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY. Could someone who has been working routinely on the CURIOSITY ROVER article make these fixes? Many thanks. Lanephil ( talk) 05:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Re "File:NASA Curiousity, first image without dust cover.jpg|thumb|First image from Curiosity rover" - Shouldnt the image be moved to Wikimedia Commons? I dont know how.(mercurywoodrose) 99.101.139.124 ( talk) 06:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
From above:
I agree. I am starting a new section on the Talk page with your comment to ensure it gets appropriate attention from all the eyes that will be on this article in the next few days and weeks. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 15:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the plutonium pellets are "each about the size of a marshmallow." Perhaps also a less US-cultural-specific comparsion in metric units should be added for readers from overseas countries, where this confection is almost unheard of. The article on marshmallow at this moment does not give an answer, therefore I ask: How many centimetres is an average piece of it? -- Miaow Miaow ( talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we can mention this somewhere in the article NASA and Microsoft released one small step for gamers. "Mars Rover Landing" is a free downloadable game on Xbox Live that uses body motions and Kinect for the Xbox 360 to simulate the "seven minutes of terror" landing sequence. http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/warp-pipe-1.1521604/mars-rover-landing-with-kinect-for-the-xbox-360-1.3886958 -Abhishikt ( talk) 23:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2012 Olympic doodle, the UPDATED one, behind the javelin thrower, you can see Curiosity. Could this be a "popular culture" item? Javelin is somewhat fitting. :) https://www.google.com/logos/2012/javelin-2012-hp.jpg Flightsoffancy ( talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Article says that the power supply is suppused to last ~14 yrs but I didn't see anything about how long they are expecting the rover itself to continue operating.
What is happening with the references format? When i click on "edit" of that section, there is a long list of all references used in the article. By default, inserting {{reflist}} is the only information required in this section! BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | citations appear in a single section containing ONLY the <references /> tag or the {{reflist}} | ” |
I've added data about the speed of communications between Curiosity, the orbiters and the Earth. Such data was deleted for no reason, while a minor part of what I've written was kept, but without the source. I would like to understand the reasons for this, since I thought this kind of info to be relevant. Eliasams ( talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As an American taxpayer, I'd like to know the total cost of this mission. Surely that is a relevant data point. Perhaps that information has been omitted so as not to draw attention to the huge expenditure of resources. I notice that the total cost for the mission is mentioned as $2.5 billion on the MSL page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory 66.92.0.146 ( talk) 21:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that in terms of overall information organization and presentation, the section on the landing site should probably appear above the section on the cultural impact of the landing, as that section is likely to grow and become a trivia farm fairly quickly. This may obscure the more scientific presentation of the information in the landing site section. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the following section from the article, as it appears dependent on articles not yet created, and was not placed in the appropriate location within the Curiosity article. The pages were deleted via afd. If and when the time is appropriate to include this information, it can be found here, or in the archives. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Curiosity - News, Images, Videos by day
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 1 - 6 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 2 - 7 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 3 - 8 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 4 - 9 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 5 - 10 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 6 - 11 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 7 - 12 August 2012
According this NASA Inspector General report the RTG showed unexpected performance loss by the new developed thermocouples. As a result:
Is that reduction still to expect? What is the actual measured electric power output of the RTG now? -- Carel A. Kraft ( talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Talking of images... Curiosity does not use JPEG but JET's own ICER wavelet-based image compressor. Someone at NASA are getting their space probes mixed up. [6]-- Aspro ( talk) 13:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Quote: "NASA afforded the general public the opportunity from 2009 until 2011 to submit their names to be sent to Mars. More than 1.2 million people from the international community did so; their names were etched onto a microchip which is now on the deck of Curiosity on the surface of Mars."
It it was a microchip, their names would be downloaded electronically, right? I doubt they would purchase a radiation-hardened microchip only to etch it. A solid plate gets etched. What is it? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The distance to Mars is about 35 million miles, but the article states that the rover traveled 350 million miles. I believe both the article and its CNN source must be in error. I do not have the time at the moment to correct the error and provide alternate sources. In a few days from now, if someone else has not made the correction, I will do so myself. EDIT: It appears that I might be mistaken about this, depending on the path taken and the relative planetary positions... BenMhWlk ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Spirit and Opportunity Rover images were 'encoded' on the NASA website, allowing a user to pick out which camera,filter etc was used to generate the image - Curiosity seems to be using a different format - is the information available for Curiosity and can the information be placed here if so ? (Couldn't find the key on the NASA mini-site?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
Relevant sources for this article (for sources useful but not yet used—please either add a source or use one and strike it out):
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynhockey ( talk • contribs) 6:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Request composite image of Gale crater overlaid with an Earth location. Maybe New York or London. Fotaun ( talk) 17:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The apparent trend seems to insert new images in this article daily. Even the spacecraft infobox is overloaded with 3 images. Although the article is enriched with prudent use of images, this rate is not sustainable, especially on a 2-year mission. What do you guys think on creating an imagery section with a gallery of most relevant images, similar to what was used on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter? Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If we were to move the "parachute image", currently in the instrument section to a left column orientation, the MARDI picture will be close to the MARDI section, and we can avoid a top to bottom image column. It is just a suggestion. I was viewing pages such as Mars Science Laboratory, Opportunity rover and Spirit rover, and they seem to be a bit more visually balanced than this article at this time. Also, there appear to be a few hidden images in the landing section as well as a few other sections. Should we keep these or delete them? Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I would also reduce the size of the largest images and set them all to the same size for cleaner format. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if most, if not all, of the current image issues have been addressed. The article is more balanced and more appealing. The choice to include the enlarged rover diagram, with labeled instrumentation, makes all the difference in the mid-section of the article. Great job! Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What gives with the big yellow box at the top? My objections:
Is there strong consensus to keep this? Staecker ( talk) 00:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently, there is a cite error in association with this line: <_ref name="nasa1"> "Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity". NASA. Retrieved August 6, 2012.</ref>
It says that this reference has not been used in this article before. For now, I'm going to delete it, since I don't know what line of text this citation was originally used for. 3er40 ( talk) 02:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Recently Curiosity was shooting a laser at a rock and examining the spectrum of the light emitted in over 2000 wavelengths. [8] I know NASA features their raw feed for camera photos, but is there a raw feed for returned data from the instruments? (Chemistry seems the most important, but also things like the telemetry of how fast the crane descended, etc. would be interesting) Wnt ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) is currently described in the article text, it is an instrument that has a role only on the spaceflight portion of the journey. I see no role described for this camera as part of the rover mission on the surface of Mars.
If that is true, then perhaps the entire section ought to be moved from the rover article to the Mars Science Laboratory article that describes the spaceflight and the spacecraft.
If that is not correct, and the camera has an ongoing role on the Martian surface, then we will need to find a source to describe that role and cite it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone point to a non-paywalled copy of the Litvak paper on the DAN experiment? I'd like to know more about how the neutrons are generated and how the data in this chart is collected. [12] Thanks much. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There was an entry in the media coverage/cultural impact section mentioning the Angry Birds game with Mars as the setting. I initially deleted this information as trivial, and not directly relevant to this specific article. More information has been released which would indicate I may have been premature in my assessment. If any editor is feeling bold, there is a reference to the Curiosity rover in the new game, listed at the following source. Video game details. While I still consider this trivia, the source is available should another editor feel it is relevant. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
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. [17]
Also, I found this as I was doing research. It's something that might make a quirky addition to, or as a caption in, the Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission article; but would just end up being trivia on the main article. August 9: "Curiosity awoke from her 'beauty sleep' today to the toe-tapping tune 'Good Morning' from the musical 'Singing in the Rain,' feeling healthy and refreshed and ready for a busy day of continued health checks and imagery," according to an Aug. 9 report on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory Website. "The rover continues to perform very well." [18]. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If interested - "NASA News Briefing - Curiosity Update" ( Check Schedule):
In Any Case - Enjoy! :) - Updated Drbogdan ( talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hatnotes are an eyesore and a distraction; a sometimes useful one, but not in this case. There is virtually zero chance that readers googling for either Mars Science Laboratory or Curiosity rover could end up on the wrong article, as the two titles are completely different. Yes, the two topics are closely related, which is why they should link to each other from within the first sentence (non just from the lead). Now that they do, I don't see a good reason to contravene WP:RELATED. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 23:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"Keep - The statement, "There is virtually zero chance that readers googling for either Mars Science Laboratory or Curiosity rover could end up on the wrong article, as the two titles are completely different" has many problems as an argument for excluding the hatnote. 1) Hatnotes are not provided for aiding in a Google search, they are used to distinguish between similar articles in a Wikipedia search, which is not based on the same algorithm. 2) The Mars Science Laboratory article contained the Curiosity rover article until recently. Many readers who have already used the MSL article for reference may wonder why more recent information is not included. Conversely, users looking for information for the MSL spacecraft may wonder why it isn't mentioned in more detail in the Curiosity rover article. If you take a moment to view the user feedback on both pages (the link is located at the top of each talk page), people often confuse the two topics, and with good reason. 3) The mission is called the "Mars Science Laboratory mission". The Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft itself has since crashed on Mars, and won't be reporting any further data. The article Curiosity rover has been designated by community consensus as the proper article for taking over main coverage of the ground mission. This was an arbitrary decision, of which the common Wikipedia user would have no knowledge. Saving the potential reader of the article having to read the entire article, only to find out it wasn't the information they were looking for, is not the most user-friendly approach. I believe the hatnote is not only appropriate, but completely necessary in this case. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, please have a look at WP:HAT; the main question to consider is "Could a reader wrongly end up on this article, while looking for a different one (e.g. due to an ambiguous title)?" If the answer is "Chances are, yes", then a hatnote is entirely appropriate. This is not the case here: whoever searches for "Curiosity rover" or "Mars Scien..." (either through Google or WP's search engine; the result is the same) is taken straight to the intended article, no disambiguation needed. The scope of both articles (and the relation between Curiosity and MSL) is clear from reading the opening line – no need to read the entire article – again making a hatnote wholly redundant. Going by the same "Keep" logic , then for example Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle should have a hatnote pointing to Project Mercury and so on for countless other articles. There is already enough clutter around WP: let's try to keep it at a minimum. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Keep - There is specific confusion in the media and with the general public, where Mars Science Laboratory is used to talk about multiple things: the mission as a whole, the spaceflight, the spacecraft, or the actual rover operating on Mars. It may one day be the case that the Wikipedia articles may one day be renamed, but for now, per Talk-page consensus, Wikipedia is using the two terms to describe two different but related things: MSL for the spaceflight and spacecraft, and Curiosity Rover for the rover and the surface science mission. It is precisely because of this confusion by readers that the MSL and CR article page consensus had been to include the hatnotes, and it appears that is still the consensus. WP:RELATED and WP:HATNOTE are merely a Wikipedia guidelines, essays that have been written by a few editors interested in the topic; they are not a formal policy. And they need not be determinitive in a case like this, where the article-level consensus is to include clarifying hatnotes. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 01:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It would appear the fate of the Timeline article is nearing a decision, and the outlook isn't positive. We should probably have a plan for dealing with the information in the Timeline subsection of this article, once it has been deleted. Deleting the MSL timeline article link is easy. Could the graph table information be condensed? There appears to be a bit too much empty space in the "Launch, cruise and landing" section. Perhaps the information in that section could be revised slightly to present a tighter table? I don't believe anything will be added to this particular section in the future, which might deal with the empty space issue by adding data. The content deals with minor course corrections. Perhaps they could be consolidated to one line with each single correction listed: "Trajectory correction 1: Jan. 11, Trajectory correction 2: Mar. 26th, etc. There are only 4 total corrections with dates, only one of which has a note.
Expanding the "Event" column size slightly will also fix some chunks of empty space, by eliminating 3 lines of text in some of the event fields. This is assuming we keep the graph in this format. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, and the no consensus outcome for deletion rached at [19] I decided to WP:Blow it up and start over; I began the process of moving and re-writing the timeline in a narrative format. Please feel free to edit and expand the Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission with significative events and plenty of relevant images. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, NASA permitted the MSL to have exposed wires as part of its deployed design. Mars has lightning (just like the earth does) and lightning events can damage exposed wires. Separate from this issue, it is possible for wires to be damaged by the landing process. At least one wind sensor, may have had it wires cut or damaged by the landing process. [20]
Many people involved in space segment imaging systems feel that the MSL imaging sensor was permitted to have too low a resolution for no good reason. The MSL Mastcam imaging specification was frozen in 2004, and never updated. Although the MSL has better cameras (~2 megapixel) than the previous generation of Mars rovers (~1 megepixel) this is only a 2x improvement. [21]
(This really needs to be part of the pages for this device, as these are known problems. Wikipedia should not as a rule be covering up technical and technological mistakes, as no possible good can come from doing so. Ignoring design flaws very often leads to needless loss of life (by repeating the same mistakes) later on. Eyreland ( talk) 09:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) )
The above post by User:Ynhockey, refers to the fridge which is used to lower the thermal noise in the CCD on the CheMin. This cooling is required due to the very long exposures (the noise would otherwise swamp the signal). The link suggested is not IMHO very suitable and smacks of advertising. However, this complex part of the rover deserves its own article (with proper links), would Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) be suitable do you think? Meaning: the title could be confused with the 'subject' of Chemistry and Mineralogy rather than a analytical instrument. Or perhaps MSL- Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) -- Aspro ( talk) 11:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As of August 29th, 2012 (today) the rover has started traveling. ( http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-269). 52 feet so far. Perhaps there should be a new section after "Landing" called perhaps "Roving" to track the robot's travel as it proceeds? Gatfish ( talk) 23:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder the use of the image of the 1st laser spec on Coronation rock. It was part of the instrument calibration on a non-interesting rock that happened to be nearby. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
VIGO, a subsystem vendor (out of thousands) is not a notable entry in the SAM summary. VIGO vendor is already mentioned in the SAM article, if it must be. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this part of planetary protection already mentioned anywhere? The media make a big hype from it.
If the Mars rover finds water, it could be H2 ... uh oh! -- Stone ( talk) 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Should we mention somewhere that the misssion was VI (not targeting special regions)?
Planetary Protection Constraints on MSL Landing Sites .
doi:
10.1109/AERO.2005.1559320. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) --
Stone (
talk)
21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As of 6 August 2012, with the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, this article has been split from the Mars Science Laboratory article. This topic was discussed on the Talk:Mars Science Laboratory Talk page in the weeks leading up to the landing. The rationale was topic breadth. With the successful landing, it seemed that a new article to focus on the:
Consensus was achieved to split the articles into two, immediately after the SUCCESSFUL landing of the rover. The payload of the spaceflight mission, the Curiosity rover, has now landed successfully on Mars. Time to split the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk)
The article split rationale, and the scope of the two resultant articles, ought not to too quickly be archived. N2e ( talk)
There is a tendency for 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.
While this isn't quite as important as other aspects of the article, it can be distracting to see multiple variations used. The easiest way to avoid this is to change the phrasing to the "moons of mars" rather than having differing possessive forms within the same article, and causing editors to consume time trying to decide whether it should be Mars' moons or Mars's moons. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)
please post real image of curiosity rover in infobox, instead of animated image? Ram nareshji ( talk) 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If interested - seems a NASA Curiosity rover Press Teleconference is scheduled for 2pm/edt/usa, Thursday, October 11, 2012 - NASA Ustream and NASA Audio - Details => http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20121009.html - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
[23] Now we will hear whats up. -- Stone ( talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere on the article page is markup to launch java. I think it should be removed. War ( talk) 09:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory article is now referenced in 3 highly visible places: the hatnote, in a section which is empty except for the intralink to the article, as well as in the "See also" section. This would seem to be the consequence of the extended debate over the format of the Timeline article, when links to that article were installed during edit wars. I question whether it is necessary in the hatnote? I also question having a section where the only content is a link to another article, especially when that content is located in the hatnote at the beginning of the article, as well as the See also section.
My recommendation would be to remove the hatnote containing the timeline, as well as the nearly empty section with the intralink. A "main article" link would seem to be more appropriate, could be installed in any one of multiple relevant sections (ex: landing section), and will help avoid the cluster of videos, images and the nearly empty text section at the bottom of the article, leading into the multimedia sections. Just a suggestion. Cheers. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of good (reliable source) information on how the daily "missions" for Curiosity are planned for each Martian day (sol), how many scientists and engineers are involved, etc. in this article published today [24]. It covers the planning teams switch back to Earth time, but has much more that could be gleaned, and might make for the start of a new section in the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
NASA (via an NPR interview) reports today (Tuesday, November 20, 2012) that the Curiosity Rover, apparently based on a SAM analysis, has made "an 'earthshaking' discovery" - according to John Grotzinger ( MSL Principal Investigator), “This data is gonna be one for the history books. It’s looking really good.” - but the Curiosity scientists want to verify their results before making an official announcement - maybe in a few weeks? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, results of the new discovery on Mars will be presented "at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which takes place Dec. 3-7 in San Francisco" according to John Grotzinger ( MSL Principal Investigator) in a seemingly exclusive interview with Space.com - "public lecture will be given by Michael Meyer, John Grotzinger, and Rebecca Williams" and begins at noon, Sunday, December 2, 2012 (?) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The scientist have real strict rules of the road not to comunicate anything to the public befor it was ofically allowed. Has Grotzinger violated this? -- Stone ( talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW - Added relevant text (& detailed references) of the "earthshaking" Mars discovery news to the " Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Glenelg terrain" section and " 2012 in science#November" page - Also, added a related (tmp?) link at: " Curiosity rover#External links" - Also, created a redirect page for " Curiosity rover timeline" (similar to " Opportunity rover timeline"?) and "directed" to the " Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory" page - Please feel free to rv/mv/ce of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
OK - added relevant text/ref as described above re Gilbert Levin to the Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Glenelg terrain section - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Followup - Seems the NPR interviewer, not John Grotzinger, used the word "earth-shaking" in the NPR interview according to the original transcript => < ref name="NPR-20121120t">Palca, Joe (November 20, 2012). "Big News From Mars? Rover Scientists Mum For Now - Transcript". NPR. Retrieved November 26, 2012.</ref> - relevant text in known articles have been updated & clarified accordingly - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 05:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
U13A. U13A. Results From Mars Science Laboratory Mission Four Months After Landing 1:40 PM - 3:40 PM;
Lets have a look what they will show. -- Stone ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I believe the guy in the live stream said the touchdown was at 10:14:39 PDT (05:14:39 UTC). Kaldari ( talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, we now have definitive information and sourcing for the landing time. The 15:14:39 UTC (SCET) landing time currently used is definitely wrong, and the origin of the error has been identified. See the TALK page at the MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY for details. The landing time (with a definitive NASA source) should be: year 2012, day 219 (Aug. 6), time 05:17:57 Spacecraft UTC (that is, SpaceCraft Event Time, SCET). Translation into Event Received Time (ERT) on Earth involves knowing the One Way Lightspeed Time, which is approximately 14 minutes, but for which we do not yet have a well-sourced to-the-second number. We *do* have a well-sourced (NASA-sourced) approximate ERT landing time of 10:32pm PDT, and that's what should be used for now. All detailed references are in my notes in TALK/MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY. Could someone who has been working routinely on the CURIOSITY ROVER article make these fixes? Many thanks. Lanephil ( talk) 05:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Re "File:NASA Curiousity, first image without dust cover.jpg|thumb|First image from Curiosity rover" - Shouldnt the image be moved to Wikimedia Commons? I dont know how.(mercurywoodrose) 99.101.139.124 ( talk) 06:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
From above:
I agree. I am starting a new section on the Talk page with your comment to ensure it gets appropriate attention from all the eyes that will be on this article in the next few days and weeks. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 15:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the plutonium pellets are "each about the size of a marshmallow." Perhaps also a less US-cultural-specific comparsion in metric units should be added for readers from overseas countries, where this confection is almost unheard of. The article on marshmallow at this moment does not give an answer, therefore I ask: How many centimetres is an average piece of it? -- Miaow Miaow ( talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we can mention this somewhere in the article NASA and Microsoft released one small step for gamers. "Mars Rover Landing" is a free downloadable game on Xbox Live that uses body motions and Kinect for the Xbox 360 to simulate the "seven minutes of terror" landing sequence. http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/warp-pipe-1.1521604/mars-rover-landing-with-kinect-for-the-xbox-360-1.3886958 -Abhishikt ( talk) 23:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2012 Olympic doodle, the UPDATED one, behind the javelin thrower, you can see Curiosity. Could this be a "popular culture" item? Javelin is somewhat fitting. :) https://www.google.com/logos/2012/javelin-2012-hp.jpg Flightsoffancy ( talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Article says that the power supply is suppused to last ~14 yrs but I didn't see anything about how long they are expecting the rover itself to continue operating.
What is happening with the references format? When i click on "edit" of that section, there is a long list of all references used in the article. By default, inserting {{reflist}} is the only information required in this section! BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
“ | citations appear in a single section containing ONLY the <references /> tag or the {{reflist}} | ” |
I've added data about the speed of communications between Curiosity, the orbiters and the Earth. Such data was deleted for no reason, while a minor part of what I've written was kept, but without the source. I would like to understand the reasons for this, since I thought this kind of info to be relevant. Eliasams ( talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As an American taxpayer, I'd like to know the total cost of this mission. Surely that is a relevant data point. Perhaps that information has been omitted so as not to draw attention to the huge expenditure of resources. I notice that the total cost for the mission is mentioned as $2.5 billion on the MSL page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory 66.92.0.146 ( talk) 21:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that in terms of overall information organization and presentation, the section on the landing site should probably appear above the section on the cultural impact of the landing, as that section is likely to grow and become a trivia farm fairly quickly. This may obscure the more scientific presentation of the information in the landing site section. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the following section from the article, as it appears dependent on articles not yet created, and was not placed in the appropriate location within the Curiosity article. The pages were deleted via afd. If and when the time is appropriate to include this information, it can be found here, or in the archives. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Curiosity - News, Images, Videos by day
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 1 - 6 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 2 - 7 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 3 - 8 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 4 - 9 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 5 - 10 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 6 - 11 August 2012
MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 7 - 12 August 2012
According this NASA Inspector General report the RTG showed unexpected performance loss by the new developed thermocouples. As a result:
Is that reduction still to expect? What is the actual measured electric power output of the RTG now? -- Carel A. Kraft ( talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Talking of images... Curiosity does not use JPEG but JET's own ICER wavelet-based image compressor. Someone at NASA are getting their space probes mixed up. [6]-- Aspro ( talk) 13:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Quote: "NASA afforded the general public the opportunity from 2009 until 2011 to submit their names to be sent to Mars. More than 1.2 million people from the international community did so; their names were etched onto a microchip which is now on the deck of Curiosity on the surface of Mars."
It it was a microchip, their names would be downloaded electronically, right? I doubt they would purchase a radiation-hardened microchip only to etch it. A solid plate gets etched. What is it? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The distance to Mars is about 35 million miles, but the article states that the rover traveled 350 million miles. I believe both the article and its CNN source must be in error. I do not have the time at the moment to correct the error and provide alternate sources. In a few days from now, if someone else has not made the correction, I will do so myself. EDIT: It appears that I might be mistaken about this, depending on the path taken and the relative planetary positions... BenMhWlk ( talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Spirit and Opportunity Rover images were 'encoded' on the NASA website, allowing a user to pick out which camera,filter etc was used to generate the image - Curiosity seems to be using a different format - is the information available for Curiosity and can the information be placed here if so ? (Couldn't find the key on the NASA mini-site?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
Relevant sources for this article (for sources useful but not yet used—please either add a source or use one and strike it out):
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynhockey ( talk • contribs) 6:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Request composite image of Gale crater overlaid with an Earth location. Maybe New York or London. Fotaun ( talk) 17:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The apparent trend seems to insert new images in this article daily. Even the spacecraft infobox is overloaded with 3 images. Although the article is enriched with prudent use of images, this rate is not sustainable, especially on a 2-year mission. What do you guys think on creating an imagery section with a gallery of most relevant images, similar to what was used on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter? Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If we were to move the "parachute image", currently in the instrument section to a left column orientation, the MARDI picture will be close to the MARDI section, and we can avoid a top to bottom image column. It is just a suggestion. I was viewing pages such as Mars Science Laboratory, Opportunity rover and Spirit rover, and they seem to be a bit more visually balanced than this article at this time. Also, there appear to be a few hidden images in the landing section as well as a few other sections. Should we keep these or delete them? Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I would also reduce the size of the largest images and set them all to the same size for cleaner format. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if most, if not all, of the current image issues have been addressed. The article is more balanced and more appealing. The choice to include the enlarged rover diagram, with labeled instrumentation, makes all the difference in the mid-section of the article. Great job! Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What gives with the big yellow box at the top? My objections:
Is there strong consensus to keep this? Staecker ( talk) 00:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently, there is a cite error in association with this line: <_ref name="nasa1"> "Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity". NASA. Retrieved August 6, 2012.</ref>
It says that this reference has not been used in this article before. For now, I'm going to delete it, since I don't know what line of text this citation was originally used for. 3er40 ( talk) 02:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Recently Curiosity was shooting a laser at a rock and examining the spectrum of the light emitted in over 2000 wavelengths. [8] I know NASA features their raw feed for camera photos, but is there a raw feed for returned data from the instruments? (Chemistry seems the most important, but also things like the telemetry of how fast the crane descended, etc. would be interesting) Wnt ( talk) 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) is currently described in the article text, it is an instrument that has a role only on the spaceflight portion of the journey. I see no role described for this camera as part of the rover mission on the surface of Mars.
If that is true, then perhaps the entire section ought to be moved from the rover article to the Mars Science Laboratory article that describes the spaceflight and the spacecraft.
If that is not correct, and the camera has an ongoing role on the Martian surface, then we will need to find a source to describe that role and cite it. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone point to a non-paywalled copy of the Litvak paper on the DAN experiment? I'd like to know more about how the neutrons are generated and how the data in this chart is collected. [12] Thanks much. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There was an entry in the media coverage/cultural impact section mentioning the Angry Birds game with Mars as the setting. I initially deleted this information as trivial, and not directly relevant to this specific article. More information has been released which would indicate I may have been premature in my assessment. If any editor is feeling bold, there is a reference to the Curiosity rover in the new game, listed at the following source. Video game details. While I still consider this trivia, the source is available should another editor feel it is relevant. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
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. [17]
Also, I found this as I was doing research. It's something that might make a quirky addition to, or as a caption in, the Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission article; but would just end up being trivia on the main article. August 9: "Curiosity awoke from her 'beauty sleep' today to the toe-tapping tune 'Good Morning' from the musical 'Singing in the Rain,' feeling healthy and refreshed and ready for a busy day of continued health checks and imagery," according to an Aug. 9 report on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory Website. "The rover continues to perform very well." [18]. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If interested - "NASA News Briefing - Curiosity Update" ( Check Schedule):
In Any Case - Enjoy! :) - Updated Drbogdan ( talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hatnotes are an eyesore and a distraction; a sometimes useful one, but not in this case. There is virtually zero chance that readers googling for either Mars Science Laboratory or Curiosity rover could end up on the wrong article, as the two titles are completely different. Yes, the two topics are closely related, which is why they should link to each other from within the first sentence (non just from the lead). Now that they do, I don't see a good reason to contravene WP:RELATED. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 23:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"Keep - The statement, "There is virtually zero chance that readers googling for either Mars Science Laboratory or Curiosity rover could end up on the wrong article, as the two titles are completely different" has many problems as an argument for excluding the hatnote. 1) Hatnotes are not provided for aiding in a Google search, they are used to distinguish between similar articles in a Wikipedia search, which is not based on the same algorithm. 2) The Mars Science Laboratory article contained the Curiosity rover article until recently. Many readers who have already used the MSL article for reference may wonder why more recent information is not included. Conversely, users looking for information for the MSL spacecraft may wonder why it isn't mentioned in more detail in the Curiosity rover article. If you take a moment to view the user feedback on both pages (the link is located at the top of each talk page), people often confuse the two topics, and with good reason. 3) The mission is called the "Mars Science Laboratory mission". The Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft itself has since crashed on Mars, and won't be reporting any further data. The article Curiosity rover has been designated by community consensus as the proper article for taking over main coverage of the ground mission. This was an arbitrary decision, of which the common Wikipedia user would have no knowledge. Saving the potential reader of the article having to read the entire article, only to find out it wasn't the information they were looking for, is not the most user-friendly approach. I believe the hatnote is not only appropriate, but completely necessary in this case. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, please have a look at WP:HAT; the main question to consider is "Could a reader wrongly end up on this article, while looking for a different one (e.g. due to an ambiguous title)?" If the answer is "Chances are, yes", then a hatnote is entirely appropriate. This is not the case here: whoever searches for "Curiosity rover" or "Mars Scien..." (either through Google or WP's search engine; the result is the same) is taken straight to the intended article, no disambiguation needed. The scope of both articles (and the relation between Curiosity and MSL) is clear from reading the opening line – no need to read the entire article – again making a hatnote wholly redundant. Going by the same "Keep" logic , then for example Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle should have a hatnote pointing to Project Mercury and so on for countless other articles. There is already enough clutter around WP: let's try to keep it at a minimum. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"Keep - There is specific confusion in the media and with the general public, where Mars Science Laboratory is used to talk about multiple things: the mission as a whole, the spaceflight, the spacecraft, or the actual rover operating on Mars. It may one day be the case that the Wikipedia articles may one day be renamed, but for now, per Talk-page consensus, Wikipedia is using the two terms to describe two different but related things: MSL for the spaceflight and spacecraft, and Curiosity Rover for the rover and the surface science mission. It is precisely because of this confusion by readers that the MSL and CR article page consensus had been to include the hatnotes, and it appears that is still the consensus. WP:RELATED and WP:HATNOTE are merely a Wikipedia guidelines, essays that have been written by a few editors interested in the topic; they are not a formal policy. And they need not be determinitive in a case like this, where the article-level consensus is to include clarifying hatnotes. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 01:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It would appear the fate of the Timeline article is nearing a decision, and the outlook isn't positive. We should probably have a plan for dealing with the information in the Timeline subsection of this article, once it has been deleted. Deleting the MSL timeline article link is easy. Could the graph table information be condensed? There appears to be a bit too much empty space in the "Launch, cruise and landing" section. Perhaps the information in that section could be revised slightly to present a tighter table? I don't believe anything will be added to this particular section in the future, which might deal with the empty space issue by adding data. The content deals with minor course corrections. Perhaps they could be consolidated to one line with each single correction listed: "Trajectory correction 1: Jan. 11, Trajectory correction 2: Mar. 26th, etc. There are only 4 total corrections with dates, only one of which has a note.
Expanding the "Event" column size slightly will also fix some chunks of empty space, by eliminating 3 lines of text in some of the event fields. This is assuming we keep the graph in this format. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD, and the no consensus outcome for deletion rached at [19] I decided to WP:Blow it up and start over; I began the process of moving and re-writing the timeline in a narrative format. Please feel free to edit and expand the Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission with significative events and plenty of relevant images. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, NASA permitted the MSL to have exposed wires as part of its deployed design. Mars has lightning (just like the earth does) and lightning events can damage exposed wires. Separate from this issue, it is possible for wires to be damaged by the landing process. At least one wind sensor, may have had it wires cut or damaged by the landing process. [20]
Many people involved in space segment imaging systems feel that the MSL imaging sensor was permitted to have too low a resolution for no good reason. The MSL Mastcam imaging specification was frozen in 2004, and never updated. Although the MSL has better cameras (~2 megapixel) than the previous generation of Mars rovers (~1 megepixel) this is only a 2x improvement. [21]
(This really needs to be part of the pages for this device, as these are known problems. Wikipedia should not as a rule be covering up technical and technological mistakes, as no possible good can come from doing so. Ignoring design flaws very often leads to needless loss of life (by repeating the same mistakes) later on. Eyreland ( talk) 09:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) )
The above post by User:Ynhockey, refers to the fridge which is used to lower the thermal noise in the CCD on the CheMin. This cooling is required due to the very long exposures (the noise would otherwise swamp the signal). The link suggested is not IMHO very suitable and smacks of advertising. However, this complex part of the rover deserves its own article (with proper links), would Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) be suitable do you think? Meaning: the title could be confused with the 'subject' of Chemistry and Mineralogy rather than a analytical instrument. Or perhaps MSL- Chemistry and Mineralogy (CheMin) -- Aspro ( talk) 11:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As of August 29th, 2012 (today) the rover has started traveling. ( http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-269). 52 feet so far. Perhaps there should be a new section after "Landing" called perhaps "Roving" to track the robot's travel as it proceeds? Gatfish ( talk) 23:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder the use of the image of the 1st laser spec on Coronation rock. It was part of the instrument calibration on a non-interesting rock that happened to be nearby. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
VIGO, a subsystem vendor (out of thousands) is not a notable entry in the SAM summary. VIGO vendor is already mentioned in the SAM article, if it must be. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this part of planetary protection already mentioned anywhere? The media make a big hype from it.
If the Mars rover finds water, it could be H2 ... uh oh! -- Stone ( talk) 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Should we mention somewhere that the misssion was VI (not targeting special regions)?
Planetary Protection Constraints on MSL Landing Sites .
doi:
10.1109/AERO.2005.1559320. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) --
Stone (
talk)
21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As of 6 August 2012, with the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, this article has been split from the Mars Science Laboratory article. This topic was discussed on the Talk:Mars Science Laboratory Talk page in the weeks leading up to the landing. The rationale was topic breadth. With the successful landing, it seemed that a new article to focus on the:
Consensus was achieved to split the articles into two, immediately after the SUCCESSFUL landing of the rover. The payload of the spaceflight mission, the Curiosity rover, has now landed successfully on Mars. Time to split the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk)
The article split rationale, and the scope of the two resultant articles, ought not to too quickly be archived. N2e ( talk)
There is a tendency for 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.
While this isn't quite as important as other aspects of the article, it can be distracting to see multiple variations used. The easiest way to avoid this is to change the phrasing to the "moons of mars" rather than having differing possessive forms within the same article, and causing editors to consume time trying to decide whether it should be Mars' moons or Mars's moons. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)
please post real image of curiosity rover in infobox, instead of animated image? Ram nareshji ( talk) 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If interested - seems a NASA Curiosity rover Press Teleconference is scheduled for 2pm/edt/usa, Thursday, October 11, 2012 - NASA Ustream and NASA Audio - Details => http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20121009.html - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
[23] Now we will hear whats up. -- Stone ( talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere on the article page is markup to launch java. I think it should be removed. War ( talk) 09:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory article is now referenced in 3 highly visible places: the hatnote, in a section which is empty except for the intralink to the article, as well as in the "See also" section. This would seem to be the consequence of the extended debate over the format of the Timeline article, when links to that article were installed during edit wars. I question whether it is necessary in the hatnote? I also question having a section where the only content is a link to another article, especially when that content is located in the hatnote at the beginning of the article, as well as the See also section.
My recommendation would be to remove the hatnote containing the timeline, as well as the nearly empty section with the intralink. A "main article" link would seem to be more appropriate, could be installed in any one of multiple relevant sections (ex: landing section), and will help avoid the cluster of videos, images and the nearly empty text section at the bottom of the article, leading into the multimedia sections. Just a suggestion. Cheers. -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of good (reliable source) information on how the daily "missions" for Curiosity are planned for each Martian day (sol), how many scientists and engineers are involved, etc. in this article published today [24]. It covers the planning teams switch back to Earth time, but has much more that could be gleaned, and might make for the start of a new section in the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
NASA (via an NPR interview) reports today (Tuesday, November 20, 2012) that the Curiosity Rover, apparently based on a SAM analysis, has made "an 'earthshaking' discovery" - according to John Grotzinger ( MSL Principal Investigator), “This data is gonna be one for the history books. It’s looking really good.” - but the Curiosity scientists want to verify their results before making an official announcement - maybe in a few weeks? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, results of the new discovery on Mars will be presented "at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which takes place Dec. 3-7 in San Francisco" according to John Grotzinger ( MSL Principal Investigator) in a seemingly exclusive interview with Space.com - "public lecture will be given by Michael Meyer, John Grotzinger, and Rebecca Williams" and begins at noon, Sunday, December 2, 2012 (?) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The scientist have real strict rules of the road not to comunicate anything to the public befor it was ofically allowed. Has Grotzinger violated this? -- Stone ( talk) 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW - Added relevant text (& detailed references) of the "earthshaking" Mars discovery news to the " Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Glenelg terrain" section and " 2012 in science#November" page - Also, added a related (tmp?) link at: " Curiosity rover#External links" - Also, created a redirect page for " Curiosity rover timeline" (similar to " Opportunity rover timeline"?) and "directed" to the " Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory" page - Please feel free to rv/mv/ce of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
OK - added relevant text/ref as described above re Gilbert Levin to the Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory#Glenelg terrain section - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Followup - Seems the NPR interviewer, not John Grotzinger, used the word "earth-shaking" in the NPR interview according to the original transcript => < ref name="NPR-20121120t">Palca, Joe (November 20, 2012). "Big News From Mars? Rover Scientists Mum For Now - Transcript". NPR. Retrieved November 26, 2012.</ref> - relevant text in known articles have been updated & clarified accordingly - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 05:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
U13A. U13A. Results From Mars Science Laboratory Mission Four Months After Landing 1:40 PM - 3:40 PM;
Lets have a look what they will show. -- Stone ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)