This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Schiaparelli EDM 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 |
A news item involving Schiaparelli EDM was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 October 2016. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eg deployment altitudes, speeds, times or the 2 different? parachutes. Duration of retrorocket firing etc. So can compare with other Mars landing sequences. - Rod57 ( talk) 05:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the parachute - unlikely to be in the 20kg for back shell, - but what else makes up the 577 kg total ? - Rod57 ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The section begins, “The current EDM surface payload ..." and then cites sources from 2011 and 2013. The word "current" there implies that there may be changes in future. But now that the craft has departed Earth, further changes to the payload would appear unlikely! Mathew5000 ( talk) 08:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Schiaparelli EDM lander. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an IP user that repeatedly entered that this is an Italian mission partnered with ESA and Roscosmos. Although for this project (ExoMars), Italy is the main investor/builder within ESA, it is not an "Italian" mission, not an Italian lander and not an Italian rover. Perhaps we can clarify in the article that Italy has provided a large percentage of the funding. Comments? Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Not only has the probe reached Mars, but the lander has separated and possibly crashed as of today. Launch section needs to reflect that. Will ( Talk - contribs) 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The current article says (twice) that the Schiaparelli lander "will provide ESA and Roscomos with the technology for landing on the surface of Mars". If the ESA and Roscomos built the lander and it was ostensibly designed to land on the surface of Mars, doesn't that mean that they already have the technology? Perhaps it's supposed to say that the lander will test technology for landing on the surface of Mars (rather than provide technology). Does anyone know what these sentences are actually trying to convey? Kaldari ( talk) 05:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The total financial loss in man-hours of work and the cost of resources for the disaster of losing contact with the probe. This would be a good piece of final information for the article. This section should present the cold, hard facts. 50.111.42.136 ( talk) 01:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, the mission was declared a success because it had fulfilled its primary function of testing the landing system for the ExoMars 2020 surface platform." The mission proved that the landing system didn't work. ESA may define that as as a success but shoudl Wikipedia? It's like claiming a launch-pad explosion is a successful demonstration that a rocket system is unsafe. I will reword to a more neutral form. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 09:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the MRO found the lander, or rather, the crater it left behind: [3]. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing is listed regarding how much money this failure cost the European taxpayers. Would appreciate some info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:3D80:2CDA:D430:11F1:C48A ( talk) 14:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded: Being twitter the only available source for occurred events, even in realtime, are you sure it can be categorized as "non ecyclopedic"? GMRT has no official pages reporting those events, @esapoerations tweets are the only source. You also removed the detailed timeline, for no apparent reasons. It's a very important contribute.
/info/en/?search=Schiaparelli_EDM_lander -- Jumpjack2 ( talk) 14:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The EDM was an late invention and surfaced together with the TGO. So why is the Humbolt payload mentioned here? When TGO and EDM were planned the Humboltpayload was already historic. -- Stone ( talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
In a number of places MER-B is referred to. I think that the more common name "Opportunity" should be employed. Comments? Juan Riley ( talk) 20:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting reading : Makes it sound like the pitch roll IMU (probably updating at 15 mS intervals) saturated at its limit of 150°/s but kept the saturation flag set for 1.1 to 1.3 seconds rather than the assumed 15 mS - GNC integrated the 150°/s rate for the whole time and came up with an attitude wrong by 165° (or 195° since the sign was also wrong) - This combined with the radar distance of 3.7 km made it seem to be about 3 km underground. Logic forced it into terminal descent mode. This would release the parachutes when it got below a specified height (+1.2 km, which it immediately thought it was), and fire the retrorockets until the energy of the craft was less than equivalent to coming down at 15km/hr at an altitude of just 2 metres when it would turn off the rockets to drop ~ 2 m to the ground. The 3 km negative altitude overwhelmed what ever vertical velocity it had so it cut the rockets while it was still 3.7 km up. (It successfully switched into ground mode and kept transmitting whilst it was in free fall.) At least they found out before ExoMars. - Rod57 ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved - no opposition — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Schiaparelli EDM lander →
Schiaparelli EDM – I'm simply going to put my opinion out there – describing an "Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module" as a "lander" is redundant. While
DC Comics is a similar case where it basically means "Detective Comics Comics", the difference is that, as evidenced by the compliance with
the Manual of Style's casing guidelines, "lander" isn't part of an official or
any commonly recognisable name and is simply a descriptor intended to clarify the subject of the title. There is nothing else named "Schiaparelli EDM" and therefore this clarification isn't needed. It's the Schiaparelli Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM), and per guidelines on
precision and
conciseness, it doesn't need to be titled any other way. – PhilipTerryGraham (
talk ·
articles ·
reviews) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Schiaparelli EDM 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 |
A news item involving Schiaparelli EDM was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 October 2016. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eg deployment altitudes, speeds, times or the 2 different? parachutes. Duration of retrorocket firing etc. So can compare with other Mars landing sequences. - Rod57 ( talk) 05:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the parachute - unlikely to be in the 20kg for back shell, - but what else makes up the 577 kg total ? - Rod57 ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The section begins, “The current EDM surface payload ..." and then cites sources from 2011 and 2013. The word "current" there implies that there may be changes in future. But now that the craft has departed Earth, further changes to the payload would appear unlikely! Mathew5000 ( talk) 08:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Schiaparelli EDM lander. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an IP user that repeatedly entered that this is an Italian mission partnered with ESA and Roscosmos. Although for this project (ExoMars), Italy is the main investor/builder within ESA, it is not an "Italian" mission, not an Italian lander and not an Italian rover. Perhaps we can clarify in the article that Italy has provided a large percentage of the funding. Comments? Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Not only has the probe reached Mars, but the lander has separated and possibly crashed as of today. Launch section needs to reflect that. Will ( Talk - contribs) 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The current article says (twice) that the Schiaparelli lander "will provide ESA and Roscomos with the technology for landing on the surface of Mars". If the ESA and Roscomos built the lander and it was ostensibly designed to land on the surface of Mars, doesn't that mean that they already have the technology? Perhaps it's supposed to say that the lander will test technology for landing on the surface of Mars (rather than provide technology). Does anyone know what these sentences are actually trying to convey? Kaldari ( talk) 05:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The total financial loss in man-hours of work and the cost of resources for the disaster of losing contact with the probe. This would be a good piece of final information for the article. This section should present the cold, hard facts. 50.111.42.136 ( talk) 01:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, the mission was declared a success because it had fulfilled its primary function of testing the landing system for the ExoMars 2020 surface platform." The mission proved that the landing system didn't work. ESA may define that as as a success but shoudl Wikipedia? It's like claiming a launch-pad explosion is a successful demonstration that a rocket system is unsafe. I will reword to a more neutral form. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 09:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the MRO found the lander, or rather, the crater it left behind: [3]. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing is listed regarding how much money this failure cost the European taxpayers. Would appreciate some info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:3D80:2CDA:D430:11F1:C48A ( talk) 14:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded: Being twitter the only available source for occurred events, even in realtime, are you sure it can be categorized as "non ecyclopedic"? GMRT has no official pages reporting those events, @esapoerations tweets are the only source. You also removed the detailed timeline, for no apparent reasons. It's a very important contribute.
/info/en/?search=Schiaparelli_EDM_lander -- Jumpjack2 ( talk) 14:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The EDM was an late invention and surfaced together with the TGO. So why is the Humbolt payload mentioned here? When TGO and EDM were planned the Humboltpayload was already historic. -- Stone ( talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
In a number of places MER-B is referred to. I think that the more common name "Opportunity" should be employed. Comments? Juan Riley ( talk) 20:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting reading : Makes it sound like the pitch roll IMU (probably updating at 15 mS intervals) saturated at its limit of 150°/s but kept the saturation flag set for 1.1 to 1.3 seconds rather than the assumed 15 mS - GNC integrated the 150°/s rate for the whole time and came up with an attitude wrong by 165° (or 195° since the sign was also wrong) - This combined with the radar distance of 3.7 km made it seem to be about 3 km underground. Logic forced it into terminal descent mode. This would release the parachutes when it got below a specified height (+1.2 km, which it immediately thought it was), and fire the retrorockets until the energy of the craft was less than equivalent to coming down at 15km/hr at an altitude of just 2 metres when it would turn off the rockets to drop ~ 2 m to the ground. The 3 km negative altitude overwhelmed what ever vertical velocity it had so it cut the rockets while it was still 3.7 km up. (It successfully switched into ground mode and kept transmitting whilst it was in free fall.) At least they found out before ExoMars. - Rod57 ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved - no opposition — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Schiaparelli EDM lander →
Schiaparelli EDM – I'm simply going to put my opinion out there – describing an "Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module" as a "lander" is redundant. While
DC Comics is a similar case where it basically means "Detective Comics Comics", the difference is that, as evidenced by the compliance with
the Manual of Style's casing guidelines, "lander" isn't part of an official or
any commonly recognisable name and is simply a descriptor intended to clarify the subject of the title. There is nothing else named "Schiaparelli EDM" and therefore this clarification isn't needed. It's the Schiaparelli Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM), and per guidelines on
precision and
conciseness, it doesn't need to be titled any other way. – PhilipTerryGraham (
talk ·
articles ·
reviews) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)