![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mars Exploration Rover article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mars Exploration Rover was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: June 19, 2006. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So what about this water? The whole point of the mission was to poop out if there was water on Mars and the article only mentions the word 3 times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.48 ( talk • contribs) .
For what reason should the proper name of this article *not* be Mars Exploration Rover Mission? Kingturtle 10:58 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Should an attempt be made to make a complete timeline of this mission? It'd be an effort, but I think I may be able to do it, and will proceed if there is no objection here. The mission is deemed by NASA to last at least 90 days, so a timeline could be large, I'd make a new article for it and link it off of this article. Comments? Objections? -- Flockmeal 07:40, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
I uploaded media:New overhead th350.jpg for this article. More photos taken by the rover will be uploaded to the NASA site at 12:00PM EST. Green Mountain 15:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
a9mb8.1mb copy of the image. I think the 3mb image is definately worth uploading. It is probably going to become very famous. Green Mountain 22:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Should this page be renamed to just Mars Exploration Rover to become analogous with Mars Pathfinder, etc.? I know the NASA page refers to it as the "Mars Exploration Rover Mission," but the JPL page for Pathfinder ( http://mars.sgi.com/default1.html) referred to it as "Mars Pathfinder Mission" in the title as well. ehh I dunno. Evil saltine 17:47, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mars Pathfinder only involved one rover. The Mars Exploration Rover Mission involves two, so I think the current title is fine, and to change it would imply that there is only one rover, which is misleading. Flockmeal 17:54, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Are there articles on the failed Mars missions? I'd look for them if I knew their names. -- Spikey 19:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to have separate articles for the mission and the rovers? I'm not sure of the usual way of dealing with this situation. Green Mountain 13:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Excerpt:
This (current) wording is confusing - kg is a unit of mass, not weight or force.
It is better than the usage in the version of 20:52, 2004 Jan 8, but the original wording prior to 16:30, 2004 Jan 8 had no confusion. If people feel a need to demonstrate the ratios in both SI and english units, then it could say that it weighs only "198 kiloponds". NealMcB 05:20, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)
Well, enough with the silly units. The numbers didn't work when I started cranking them. They probably came from [4] but I found more precise-looking ones at [5] and converted them to gravity using the "equatorial gravity" numbers at [6]
NealMcB 03:09, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)
Sennheiser understands that Maestro is NASA software, but he notes that Maestro isnt hosted on a site with .gov. The categories are nasa sites and non nasa sites. Maestro was developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, but the homepage for the application is hosted by http://telascience.org/ so Sennheiser was under the impression that this would be considered a "non nasa site."
==
I'm just curious if anyone knows who runs these LiveJournal accounts that anthropomorphize the rovers into young girls: spiritrover and opportunitygrrl. That's really funny ;-) — Mulad 20:12, Mar 18, 2004
Any idea on what the resolution is of the microscopes on the rovers? I managed to find the info for Beagle 2, but not for these. -- NeuronExMachina 02:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed this.. 3Mb is just a ridiculous size for an article image, but I'm open to debate on the matter :). -- Zerbey 22:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is this little round brushy thing on the rover arm in this picture (nearer to the "elbow")? [7] I've never noticed it before and I think they only use the little brushes on the RAT for brushing off rocks etc., so what's this thing do?-- Deglr6328 10:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I noticed links to RAT on the MER-B article, which yesterday went to a disambiguation page that didn't have Rock Abrasion Tool listed. I added it, fixed up the links on the MER-A and MER-B articles, and wrote a Rock Abrasion Tool stub. I know that the RAT is covered on the Mars Exploration Rover article, but that article is getting very long and Wikipedia is now warning against expanding it and in favor of splitting it into multiple articles.
I just thought that those who contribute this content should know this. You might want to tear down my stub and link back to the MER article, or the MER article folks might want to start setting up separate articles for instrumentation and etc. I leave it to others.
Jeff Medkeff 01:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think we should leave the per capita statement. It is an interesting tidbit that does no harm to the article. People like to know where their money goes, and I think it makes some people go, "Hmm... that's cool." Thus, I vote to leave it and revert to a previous edit. Any thoughts? -- Marsbound2024 01:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article doesn't show the time/date of the end of the mission.
Drahcir
my talk
16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Basically on references. Lincher 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
I run the GAAuto script for the good articles list that alerts me to changes in the status of articles.
I noticed that this article has run into some controversy regarding whether or not it should be a good article. I have therefore delisted it for the time being and placed an entry for it in the disputes section of the good article project.
Please feel free to submit your opinions on whether or not this article qualifies for good article status there.
Cedars 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"On January 21, the Deep Space Network lost contact with the Spirit rover, for reasons originally thought to be related to a thunderstorm over Australia."
January 21 of what year? Think we need a full date here...
-- Longman391 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I know the reference does not indicate February 6th as the date, but the JPL Home Page SAYS it reached 10 kilometers "during a drive on February 6th." The images and articles were not uploaded until the next day on the 7th. Please visit www.jpl.nasa.gov for confirmation. In the future I am sure this will be verified in the status update reports on the Mars Exploration Rover home page. -- Marsbound2024 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Guys, it would be great if you created an independent section concerning the discoveries that the Rovers made. Maybe you can add information form Scientific information from the Mars Exploration Rover mission article? 59.101.161.148 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article hoping to find out what the mission has accomplished- specifically an entire section dedicated to all the scientific contributions, etc; but this article is almost entirely about the equipment and the transportation (of the rovers to Mars). -- Zybez 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I may sound a bit dumb saying this, but why did they not mount a cleaning tool to one of the arms to wipe the solar panels? MadMaxDog 10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing telling me what this mission has actually accomplished. What's been discovered? 196.40.10.250 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I discovered some direct copy-paste action going on in this article. The original source is http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_edl_parachute.html The entire article is reproduced nearly 100% starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover#Parachute I compared the too texts using this: http://www.comparesuite.com/online.htm and they were found to be 63% similar. I will look into the extent of the plagiarism and look to find the user responsible. An article rewrite will likely be necessary if the plagiarism is significantly large. Any help is appreciated. wingman358 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Recently several newspapers have written about a strange shape on the left side of one of the pictures taken by the Mars Exploration Rover, see for instance, [8]
How are the scientist interpreting the formation? Are their other pictures from the vehicle from different angles? Could one settle the issue by comparing the path of the vehicle?
-- RickardV ( talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I found the following interesting analysis of the subject here [9]. Maybe the martians are very smal, 6 cm? :) Maybe someone could do something about the stuff? -- RickardV ( talk) 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is important to cite that the rovers are spending their fifth year on Mars. There will be documentaries of this on National Geographic called "Five Years on Mars: The Rovers", which I feel should also be written about. Cakechild ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Cakechil Cakechild ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
On that note, does anyone have maps showing where and how far the rovers have traveled? The most current one I've found through googling is from about 2005 or 2006. EricDerKonig ( talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information as to why NASA chose to use a solar panel for power instead of an RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)? I know they're planning to use an RTG on the newer, bigger rover, the MSL (Mars Science Laboratory). They did use RHUs (radioisotope heater units) on the MER; the only thing I can think of is weight and cost savings associated with a mission that has a shorter planned duration - 90 days vs 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.205.80 ( talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
A simple bulleted list of interesting facts would be a nice addition to the article, such as:
Distance traveled so far by each rover; speed of each rover (high and low, depending on terrain); number of geological features visited, photographed or tested (rocks, craters, other formations); coldest temperature endured; highest temperature endured; map locating rovers on Mars surface; potential physical life span of each rover; etc...).
Sean7phil ( talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 ( talk) 05:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
These rovers have been so successful, with only minor glitches, why has no consideration never been given to re-using (the proven) design and launching more rovers, with maybe a change in the scientific experiments carried on board ? The cost savings in re-using the design, rather than starting from scratch (again! which seems to be the way these things are done) would be highly advantageous. The vehicles are fairly light and cheap, the landing method is proven, the wheel design is proven (with maybe some improvement to the bearings to stop seizing), the vehicles have lasted an extremely long time, so it seems strange to abandon what has been learnt to try an unproven new rover. Heck, why not just sell the design to any third party for use for scientific exploration (presuming they can get the rovers to Mars somehow) ? The Yeti ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The Power and electronics section says "The MSL will generate 2.5 kilowatt hours per day compared to the Mars Exploration Rovers which can generate about 0.6 kilowatt hours per day.[30]" but the source doesn't seem clear if 'day' actually means sol which would match other reports of the MERs generating up to 600kWhr/sol. Rod57 ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if the history section began with the dates (or even general months) of when each rover was launched and landed on Mars. At this point, you have to go to each individual rover's page to learn that info. IChooseLife24 ( talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I found the same quotation from the 9-year-old girl appears on an official NASA page so have substituted that in place of the obviously controversial Facebook page. My hope is this will end what appears to be an edit war between an IP user and a bot. — Glenn L ( talk) 08:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a new rover that is being sent to mars as of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.200.29 ( talk) 02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 11:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This article fails the basics: When proposed? By whom? When approved? Legislative history Directors? (Program Managers?) Designed WHERE? Manufactured WHERE? sub components, ... Assembled WHERE? Propulsion? Instruments? Rover? Launched WHERE? Paths/ Trajectories? Costs? Major findings? very disappointing 71.31.146.16 ( talk) 18:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Almost all space mission articles have a table with basic information about the mission (launch date, and so on). Strangely, it is missing from this article. So, my data crawling google sheet does not work on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC93:AA70:F0F1:B811:84F5:99DA ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Article covers the vehicle design, but not details (eg entry angle,... speeds, timings) of the nominal EDL sequence they are designed for ? - Rod57 ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20090413215211/http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/projects/projectImage.cfm?Project=1&Image=64 This is obviously a worthwhile addition to one of the articles. THE CAPACHA IS 1avadiked YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP 2601:802:8301:54B0:9589:5E44:E9F4:55FE ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mars Exploration Rover article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mars Exploration Rover was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: June 19, 2006. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So what about this water? The whole point of the mission was to poop out if there was water on Mars and the article only mentions the word 3 times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.48 ( talk • contribs) .
For what reason should the proper name of this article *not* be Mars Exploration Rover Mission? Kingturtle 10:58 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Should an attempt be made to make a complete timeline of this mission? It'd be an effort, but I think I may be able to do it, and will proceed if there is no objection here. The mission is deemed by NASA to last at least 90 days, so a timeline could be large, I'd make a new article for it and link it off of this article. Comments? Objections? -- Flockmeal 07:40, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)
I uploaded media:New overhead th350.jpg for this article. More photos taken by the rover will be uploaded to the NASA site at 12:00PM EST. Green Mountain 15:00, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
a9mb8.1mb copy of the image. I think the 3mb image is definately worth uploading. It is probably going to become very famous. Green Mountain 22:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Should this page be renamed to just Mars Exploration Rover to become analogous with Mars Pathfinder, etc.? I know the NASA page refers to it as the "Mars Exploration Rover Mission," but the JPL page for Pathfinder ( http://mars.sgi.com/default1.html) referred to it as "Mars Pathfinder Mission" in the title as well. ehh I dunno. Evil saltine 17:47, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mars Pathfinder only involved one rover. The Mars Exploration Rover Mission involves two, so I think the current title is fine, and to change it would imply that there is only one rover, which is misleading. Flockmeal 17:54, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
Are there articles on the failed Mars missions? I'd look for them if I knew their names. -- Spikey 19:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to have separate articles for the mission and the rovers? I'm not sure of the usual way of dealing with this situation. Green Mountain 13:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Excerpt:
This (current) wording is confusing - kg is a unit of mass, not weight or force.
It is better than the usage in the version of 20:52, 2004 Jan 8, but the original wording prior to 16:30, 2004 Jan 8 had no confusion. If people feel a need to demonstrate the ratios in both SI and english units, then it could say that it weighs only "198 kiloponds". NealMcB 05:20, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)
Well, enough with the silly units. The numbers didn't work when I started cranking them. They probably came from [4] but I found more precise-looking ones at [5] and converted them to gravity using the "equatorial gravity" numbers at [6]
NealMcB 03:09, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)
Sennheiser understands that Maestro is NASA software, but he notes that Maestro isnt hosted on a site with .gov. The categories are nasa sites and non nasa sites. Maestro was developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, but the homepage for the application is hosted by http://telascience.org/ so Sennheiser was under the impression that this would be considered a "non nasa site."
==
I'm just curious if anyone knows who runs these LiveJournal accounts that anthropomorphize the rovers into young girls: spiritrover and opportunitygrrl. That's really funny ;-) — Mulad 20:12, Mar 18, 2004
Any idea on what the resolution is of the microscopes on the rovers? I managed to find the info for Beagle 2, but not for these. -- NeuronExMachina 02:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed this.. 3Mb is just a ridiculous size for an article image, but I'm open to debate on the matter :). -- Zerbey 22:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is this little round brushy thing on the rover arm in this picture (nearer to the "elbow")? [7] I've never noticed it before and I think they only use the little brushes on the RAT for brushing off rocks etc., so what's this thing do?-- Deglr6328 10:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I noticed links to RAT on the MER-B article, which yesterday went to a disambiguation page that didn't have Rock Abrasion Tool listed. I added it, fixed up the links on the MER-A and MER-B articles, and wrote a Rock Abrasion Tool stub. I know that the RAT is covered on the Mars Exploration Rover article, but that article is getting very long and Wikipedia is now warning against expanding it and in favor of splitting it into multiple articles.
I just thought that those who contribute this content should know this. You might want to tear down my stub and link back to the MER article, or the MER article folks might want to start setting up separate articles for instrumentation and etc. I leave it to others.
Jeff Medkeff 01:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think we should leave the per capita statement. It is an interesting tidbit that does no harm to the article. People like to know where their money goes, and I think it makes some people go, "Hmm... that's cool." Thus, I vote to leave it and revert to a previous edit. Any thoughts? -- Marsbound2024 01:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article doesn't show the time/date of the end of the mission.
Drahcir
my talk
16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Basically on references. Lincher 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
I run the GAAuto script for the good articles list that alerts me to changes in the status of articles.
I noticed that this article has run into some controversy regarding whether or not it should be a good article. I have therefore delisted it for the time being and placed an entry for it in the disputes section of the good article project.
Please feel free to submit your opinions on whether or not this article qualifies for good article status there.
Cedars 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"On January 21, the Deep Space Network lost contact with the Spirit rover, for reasons originally thought to be related to a thunderstorm over Australia."
January 21 of what year? Think we need a full date here...
-- Longman391 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I know the reference does not indicate February 6th as the date, but the JPL Home Page SAYS it reached 10 kilometers "during a drive on February 6th." The images and articles were not uploaded until the next day on the 7th. Please visit www.jpl.nasa.gov for confirmation. In the future I am sure this will be verified in the status update reports on the Mars Exploration Rover home page. -- Marsbound2024 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Guys, it would be great if you created an independent section concerning the discoveries that the Rovers made. Maybe you can add information form Scientific information from the Mars Exploration Rover mission article? 59.101.161.148 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article hoping to find out what the mission has accomplished- specifically an entire section dedicated to all the scientific contributions, etc; but this article is almost entirely about the equipment and the transportation (of the rovers to Mars). -- Zybez 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I may sound a bit dumb saying this, but why did they not mount a cleaning tool to one of the arms to wipe the solar panels? MadMaxDog 10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing telling me what this mission has actually accomplished. What's been discovered? 196.40.10.250 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I discovered some direct copy-paste action going on in this article. The original source is http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_edl_parachute.html The entire article is reproduced nearly 100% starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover#Parachute I compared the too texts using this: http://www.comparesuite.com/online.htm and they were found to be 63% similar. I will look into the extent of the plagiarism and look to find the user responsible. An article rewrite will likely be necessary if the plagiarism is significantly large. Any help is appreciated. wingman358 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Recently several newspapers have written about a strange shape on the left side of one of the pictures taken by the Mars Exploration Rover, see for instance, [8]
How are the scientist interpreting the formation? Are their other pictures from the vehicle from different angles? Could one settle the issue by comparing the path of the vehicle?
-- RickardV ( talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I found the following interesting analysis of the subject here [9]. Maybe the martians are very smal, 6 cm? :) Maybe someone could do something about the stuff? -- RickardV ( talk) 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is important to cite that the rovers are spending their fifth year on Mars. There will be documentaries of this on National Geographic called "Five Years on Mars: The Rovers", which I feel should also be written about. Cakechild ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Cakechil Cakechild ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
On that note, does anyone have maps showing where and how far the rovers have traveled? The most current one I've found through googling is from about 2005 or 2006. EricDerKonig ( talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information as to why NASA chose to use a solar panel for power instead of an RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)? I know they're planning to use an RTG on the newer, bigger rover, the MSL (Mars Science Laboratory). They did use RHUs (radioisotope heater units) on the MER; the only thing I can think of is weight and cost savings associated with a mission that has a shorter planned duration - 90 days vs 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.205.80 ( talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
A simple bulleted list of interesting facts would be a nice addition to the article, such as:
Distance traveled so far by each rover; speed of each rover (high and low, depending on terrain); number of geological features visited, photographed or tested (rocks, craters, other formations); coldest temperature endured; highest temperature endured; map locating rovers on Mars surface; potential physical life span of each rover; etc...).
Sean7phil ( talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 ( talk) 05:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
These rovers have been so successful, with only minor glitches, why has no consideration never been given to re-using (the proven) design and launching more rovers, with maybe a change in the scientific experiments carried on board ? The cost savings in re-using the design, rather than starting from scratch (again! which seems to be the way these things are done) would be highly advantageous. The vehicles are fairly light and cheap, the landing method is proven, the wheel design is proven (with maybe some improvement to the bearings to stop seizing), the vehicles have lasted an extremely long time, so it seems strange to abandon what has been learnt to try an unproven new rover. Heck, why not just sell the design to any third party for use for scientific exploration (presuming they can get the rovers to Mars somehow) ? The Yeti ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The Power and electronics section says "The MSL will generate 2.5 kilowatt hours per day compared to the Mars Exploration Rovers which can generate about 0.6 kilowatt hours per day.[30]" but the source doesn't seem clear if 'day' actually means sol which would match other reports of the MERs generating up to 600kWhr/sol. Rod57 ( talk) 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if the history section began with the dates (or even general months) of when each rover was launched and landed on Mars. At this point, you have to go to each individual rover's page to learn that info. IChooseLife24 ( talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I found the same quotation from the 9-year-old girl appears on an official NASA page so have substituted that in place of the obviously controversial Facebook page. My hope is this will end what appears to be an edit war between an IP user and a bot. — Glenn L ( talk) 08:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a new rover that is being sent to mars as of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.200.29 ( talk) 02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 11:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This article fails the basics: When proposed? By whom? When approved? Legislative history Directors? (Program Managers?) Designed WHERE? Manufactured WHERE? sub components, ... Assembled WHERE? Propulsion? Instruments? Rover? Launched WHERE? Paths/ Trajectories? Costs? Major findings? very disappointing 71.31.146.16 ( talk) 18:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Almost all space mission articles have a table with basic information about the mission (launch date, and so on). Strangely, it is missing from this article. So, my data crawling google sheet does not work on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC93:AA70:F0F1:B811:84F5:99DA ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Article covers the vehicle design, but not details (eg entry angle,... speeds, timings) of the nominal EDL sequence they are designed for ? - Rod57 ( talk) 13:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
https://web.archive.org/web/20090413215211/http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/projects/projectImage.cfm?Project=1&Image=64 This is obviously a worthwhile addition to one of the articles. THE CAPACHA IS 1avadiked YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP 2601:802:8301:54B0:9589:5E44:E9F4:55FE ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)