Talk:Emirates Mars Mission

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hope Mars mission

Very useful Solegaleo (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope mission timeline

I just read this article, and I found that there is no category which holds the information regarding the craft's timeline, e.g. its communication periods, its charging periods and the time it will come into Mars' orbit (2021)

91.74.26.182 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25.3.2020

Timelines and events to note

The timeline is not clear, eg. when did the spacecraft transfer from Boulder to UAE, and were the instruments integrated in Boulder or UAE ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who did what ?

What was ISRO's contribution - was it just the study mentioned ? Who is doing the tracking and communications ? eg. where are the communications dishes on Earth (are they ISRO's or JAXA's) ? Who is doing the navigation and guidance (determining exact location and velocity, and computing engine burns to reach Mars and enter orbit ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IRSO is not mentioned on the page. Could you elaborate please?
talk) 01:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks like it was in a previous version. Grey Wanderer (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, from the looks of it, that part was deleted because there was no further information about ISRO involvement. It looks like there was a meeting about possible collaboration between ISRO and the Hope mission, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. So I don't think that's noteworthy enough to mention in the article. Fcrary (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DSN is being used for tracking and communication. KinetX is doing the navigation and guidance. I added this info with a few references to the empty "Guidance and navigation" section and took out the "Communications" section since the two things are related and I don't think there's really enough to talk about to warrant two different sections. --Yarnalgo talk 21:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Probe

There is a slowly escalating edit war over the roles of the UAE Space Agency and American universities, mostly about who should be credited with constructing the orbiter. It would be ideal if editors engaging in edit warring would come to a consensus here first by providing reliable sources and making calm, logical, arguments. Thanks Grey Wanderer (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems there is a growing discontent that seems to want to disregard any contribution made by the MBRSC into the probe and substitute it with word like "sponsored" and "funded". While clearly the location of the asssembly, instruments payload, and tests occurred at LASP, MBRSC engineers were also there and contributed majorly to the development per cited sources and hence makes this a joint development project.
Location of the probe collaborative development does not discredit other non-host developers who worked on it, particularly MBRSC engineers and probe deisngers and ASU and Berkeley instrument developers. Gorebath (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a delicate point, since the UAE definitely wants to emphasize their role, did not do everything, and the public information on exactly who did what work are unavailable. We need to strike a balance in how we phrase this. We can't imply (as an earlier edit did) that all of the work was done by UAE engineers and technicians working in Boulder. We also can not imply that the UAE people working in Boulder did none of the work. We can't, as far as all the references go, even conclude that the UAE's people contributed "majorly". We just do not have any citable information on how big the contributions from each of the institutions involved were. Without that sort of citable information, I think we need to be a bit vague on the details and avoid phrasing things in a way which implies anything about the magnitude of the respective contributions.
(Oh, and I did make a slight edit to Gorebath comment. I added an indent for readability. Not a big deal, but I always feel bad about any edit to another editor's comments on a talk page, and to justify it...) Fcrary (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just pitching in here, I do have COI, but LASP's website does break down contributions: https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/2020/07/14/emirates-mars-mission-launching-this-week-in-partnership-with-lasp-at-cu-boulder/ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding him correctly, I think I agree with User:Gorebath; but it is an issue that not only attracts partisanship in this particular instance because of the unique role of MBRSC - but will become increasingly relevant as we deal with private space exploration in general and begin to question whether it matters the origin of where SpaceX hires its unskilled labor, its skilled labor and its designers, versus where they actually carry out their work? In general I'm aware my own bias is towards crediting the agencies that have not done as much in the past so as not to discourage them from further steps into the Great Beyond...but that's nudging up against "too woke for encyclopaedic guidelines". :) Also, are there really no updates on how flight is going? HLPD (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

“Mars Hope” seems to be used more than “Emirates Mars Mission” by the media. Is there support for a move to this title? Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support a move to "Mars Hope" as the official title is "Emirates Mars Mission", see https://www.emiratesmarsmission.ae/. Though Mars Hope may be more widely used, I believe for accuracy sake, we should use the official title. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name - I agree with Jurisdicta that the article should keep the official name of "Emirates Mars Mission" with the redirect from "Mars Hope". - Dyork (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why Mars is "losing hydrogen and oxygen to space"

If I'm not mistaken, I think that query mentioned in the lede was solved by scientists years, if not decades, ago.

It's a combination of Mars' pretty much nonexistent magnetic field, it's weak gravity, and the solar winds.

That's why Mars can never be terraformed to have a breathable atmosphere for humans. Mars' gravity isn't strong enough to hold onto such an atmosphere against the strength of the solar winds.

Or am I missing something? 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be rephrased, but I’m sure there is still more to learn. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Half done Can you check the context so that I can make the necessary changes. AnotherEditor144 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tried to finish the job. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory claims against UAE

Hi, there was a part of the head of the article that went like this:" The dummy UAE engineers claim to have built this themselves. How ironic, it seems they have no hope." I edited this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.64.114 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emirates_Mars_Mission&oldid=1207108151"