Talk:Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/Archive 1

message: "The science payload will include..." -- this describes Mars Science Laboratory paylod rather than Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter payload.  This section should be moved to Mars Science Laboratory where it belongs. Mdrejhon 07:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: Hi, I've written a comprehensive (many sections) stub (mostly incomplete) replacement for the copyright infringing original in Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/Temp. I've had a look through that pages history, and it looks like it was doomed from the start. I would like it if this replaced Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, and any original prose that is missed (and is not copyrighted elsewhere ;-) ) can be added back in later.
:It seems there was no copyright infringement in the original article.  The two articles (original and Temp) have now been merged. -- Curps 07:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement page written 

message: I had to rewrite the MCS sub-subsection, it was copied.
Version before I rewrote: 
NASA page on MCS: 
This page has already been suspended for copyright violation in Jan 05. JamesHoadley 19:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't NASA pages public domain? The last copyvio was from www.space.com I think. --Bricktop 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought the same: All NASA publications - images or text - are public domain. Is this incorrect? Awolf002 21:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be wrong, images are certainly in the public domain, I thought website text wasn't. I was thinking the last copyvio was from NASA material, but you're right Bricktop... I think we can copy stuff from the website. Sorry for going off. I think that subsection is better rewritten anyway, there was some confusion in there about the filters. JamesHoadley 17:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought I'd update the heading, it used to sound a bit scary and was factually incorrect. JamesHoadley 16:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <del>Copyright: Don't Just Copy from the NASA site</del> <ins>All NASA material fine</ins> 

message: The "active" timeline (name could be changed if someone comes up a better one) is a timeline of events that occur, the "mission" timeline is a timeline of things that are suppose to occur. My question is how should events that have occurred be used to rewrite the mission time line? Should the mission timeline be left the way it is (future tense), or should events that have occurred be change to past tense? If the event that occurs is not exactly the same as it is planned then that should be taken into account to.
:Generally the things that have now occurred should be turned into past tense. Some thought should go into it though, eg, "Four trajectory correction maneuvers are planned" should be turned into "On date XX-MM-2005 the third and final trajectory correction maneuver was performed. The mission plan allowed for four, but only three were needed. Mission principal PersonA said that the interplanetary burn went exceedingly well". That sort of thing.
:So don't just rote turn past into future, try to tie things together and think about it as a piece of writing. Some details can be dropped, but generally they shouldn't, the number of planned corrections is as important as the number of actual corrections, and it puts the number of corrections in context. Thanks for bringing this up. JamesHoadley 01:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  After some thought and the above comments I think higher details but limited scope should be in the active timeline when they occur, while less detail but wider scope is placed in the mission time line, so with the above example it would be "4 trajectory correction maneuver were planed, but only 3 deemed needed after all. A "5th" trajectory correction maneuver is also optional within the last hours before orbital insertion for emergency purposes"; while the active time line says: "On date XX-MM-2005 the third and final trajectory correction maneuver was performed. The mission plan..." Note the above mission timeline example incorporates both past tense events and future tense events. The mission timeline will provide wider picture details of what was planed and what happened, while the active timeline will provide in-depth details of specific events, such as when the orbiter blows up (knock on wood).--BerserkerBen 04:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Timelines

message: Here's another reason not to copy directly from NASA's Mars Program website, from "Rich Zurek and the Mystery of the Disappearing Spacecraft" (12 April 2005):
:In 1999, the U.S. sent Mars Polar Lander, but it too never made it successfully to the surface. In fact, two-thirds of all international missions to the red planet have failed. It isn't trivial getting spacecraft safely to a planet that is hundreds of thousands of miles away, and solving some of the mysteries surrounding those that were lost will help future missions be successful. [emphasis mine]
Did anyone else realize that Mars moved from being about 40 million miles away to something approximating the orbit of the Moon? I think I understand now why two-thirds of the missions fail. What bothers me most about this is not only did the unnamed author write a full 3-word phrase ("hundreds of thousands") which is hard to imagine as a single typo, but nobody caught this in proofreading (assuming they even have proofreaders). It looks to me like the decaying state of the U.S. educational system is affecting even our elite science projects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. Still technically correct, 40Mmiles = 400 x 100000 miles, so plural hundreds of thousands of miles is correct. It's a literary "feel" sort of thing, so perhaps they decided that millions of miles away sounds beyond the reach of humans, but hundreds of thousands of miles is big, but definitely within the reach of humans (which is NASA's current major goal). Then again maybe they should be just shot and their family disgraced. Just joking. 58.104.40.137 14:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe NASA thinks the American public is too stupid to understand big numbers. (And maybe they're right; consider the recent juror who refused to convict based on DNA evidence that had something like a 1 in 10 billion chance of being wrong — I bet she plays the lottery every week.) I guess I should be grateful they didn't say "so far away it would take lots and lots of fingers to count all the miles". But it doesn't bode well for using NASA as an authoritative source for its own subject area. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mars is apparently closer than we think 

message: Ok I think that is going just a little to far! Talk about a huge waste of space when you have 100 of these listed:
"Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was only xxx million kilometers away from Mars at 200x-xxx-xx xx:xx:xx UTC."
Lets stick with the active timeline, maybe you can integrate distances in there, but please stick with logarithmic numbers such as .1,1,10,100 million, to save space.
: OK, I'm moving them to the talk page, to save space. — Yaohua2000 06:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, halfway there. JamesHoadley 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little more than two-thirds the way there!  Is it me, or does the fact that it seems that it being only halfway through with its travel is a little contradictory?  We are four months into the trip and we have four months left.  It seems that way, but then of course MRO has to decelerate or else it'll miss Mars altogether!  It also has a couple of course corrections.  Just a few of my thoughts. --Marsbound2024 03:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it will lose velocity as it travels away from the sun to Mars (exchangine Kinetic for Potential energy). I've never thought about that before. The course correction burns are just nudges, it's effectively in orbit until it gets to Mars. The orbit insertion burn (if there is one) and aerobraking puts an end to that nice Newtonian physics stuff. JamesHoadley 10:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Less than 10,000,000 kilometers remaining.  Time to start photographing Mars I think.  After all, they did photograph the Moon from this distance during calibration.  Look forward to orbit insertion. Marsbound2024 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countdown 

message: *******************************************************************************
  Revised: Oct 13, 2005    Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter (MRO)  / (Sun)         -74
                             http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/
 
  LAUNCH DATE:                                                MARS ARRIVAL DATE:
   Aug 12, 2005 (it's up and away)                              March 10, 2006
 
  NOTE:          AUG 11 LAUNCH SCRUBBED (fueling sensors)
        ORIGINAL AUG 10 LAUNCH SCRUBBED (gyros)
 
  LAUNCH VEHICLE:
   Atlas V two-stage
 
  BACKGROUND:
   MRO will aerobrake for 6 months from the post-insertion 35 hour orbit, saving
   450 kg of fuel. Primary science phase starts in November of 2006 and operate
   for 2 Earth years from a 112 minute, near circular polar orbit.
 
  SPACECRAFT PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
   Height=  6.5 m                          Solar panels =   20 m^2
   Width = 13.6 m (tip-to-tip)             launch weight= 2180 kg
 
  SPACECRAFT TRAJECTORY:
 
   Trajectory files (concatenated):       Start                          End
   -------------------------------------  ------------------------   -----------------
    pfile_OD003                           2005 AUG 12 12:41:55.862   2005-Aug-12 13:20
    MRO_p_c_ref-od010_050812_060401_p-v1  2005-Aug-12 13:20          2006-Mar-12 00:00
 
   Includes predicted TCM-2 maneuver on 2005-Nov-11 and MOI on 2006-Mar-10, but
   no aerobraking maneuvers thereafter.
 *******************************************************************************
Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars	Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars	Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars	Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars	Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars	Instantaneous distance between Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars
Range (km)                                                         	Orbiter UTC                                                        	Range (km)                                                         	Orbiter UTC                                                        	Range (km)                                                         	Orbiter UTC
100 000 000                                                        	2005-Aug-25 15:19:31                                               	99 000 000                                                         	2005-Aug-26 13:35:17                                               	98 000 000                                                         	2005-Aug-27 11:56:05
97 000 000                                                         	2005-Aug-28 10:22:04                                               	96 000 000                                                         	2005-Aug-29 08:53:30                                               	95 000 000                                                         	2005-Aug-30 07:30:41
94 000 000                                                         	2005-Aug-31 06:13:55                                               	93 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-01 05:03:27                                               	92 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-02 03:59:34
91 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-03 03:02:32                                               	90 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-04 02:12:39                                               	89 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-05 01:30:13
88 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-06 00:55:32                                               	87 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-07 00:28:56                                               	86 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-08 00:10:44
85 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-09 00:01:16                                               	84 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-10 00:00:54                                               	83 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-11 00:09:59
82 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-12 00:28:53                                               	81 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-13 00:57:59                                               	80 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-14 01:37:41
79 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-15 02:28:24                                               	78 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-16 03:30:34                                               	77 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-17 04:44:37
76 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-18 06:11:00                                               	75 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-19 07:50:13                                               	74 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-20 09:42:44
73 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-21 11:49:05                                               	72 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-22 14:09:47                                               	71 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-23 16:45:25
70 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-24 19:36:33                                               	69 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-25 22:43:48                                               	68 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-27 02:07:47
67 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-28 05:49:10                                               	66 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-29 09:48:38                                               	65 000 000                                                         	2005-Sep-30 14:06:56
64 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-01 18:44:48                                               	63 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-02 23:43:01                                               	62 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-04 05:02:26
61 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-05 10:43:56                                               	60 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-06 16:48:25                                               	59 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-07 23:16:50
58 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-09 06:10:14                                               	57 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-10 13:29:40                                               	56 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-11 21:16:15
55 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-13 05:31:12                                               	54 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-14 14:15:45                                               	53 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-15 23:31:14
52 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-17 09:19:04                                               	51 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-18 19:40:43                                               	50 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-20 06:37:46
49 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-21 18:11:53                                               	48 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-23 06:24:50                                               	47 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-24 19:18:31
46 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-26 08:54:54                                               	45 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-27 23:16:08                                               	44 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-29 14:24:28
43 000 000                                                         	2005-Oct-31 06:22:18                                               	42 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-01 23:12:11                                               	41 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-03 16:56:51
40 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-05 11:39:11                                               	39 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-07 07:22:17                                               	38 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-09 04:09:23
37 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-11 02:04:01                                               	36 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-13 01:09:50                                               	35 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-15 01:30:45
34 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-17 03:10:54                                               	33 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-19 06:14:25                                               	32 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-21 10:45:55
31 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-23 16:50:18                                               	30 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-26 00:32:30                                               	29 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-28 09:57:37
28 000 000                                                         	2005-Nov-30 21:10:49                                               	27 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-03 10:17:18                                               	26 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-06 01:22:12
25 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-08 18:30:29                                               	24 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-11 13:46:46                                               	23 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-14 11:15:12
22 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-17 10:59:12                                               	21 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-20 13:01:19                                               	20 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-23 17:22:56
19 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-27 00:04:01                                               	18 000 000                                                         	2005-Dec-30 09:03:01                                               	17 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-02 20:16:33
16 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-06 09:39:29                                               	15 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-10 01:04:48                                               	14 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-13 18:23:50
13 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-17 13:26:23                                               	12 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-21 10:01:12                                               	11 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-25 07:56:17
10 000 000                                                         	2006-Jan-29 06:59:24                                               	9 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-02 06:58:31                                               	8 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-06 07:42:13
7 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-10 09:00:01                                               	6 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-14 10:42:35                                               	5 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-18 12:41:54
4 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-22 14:51:15                                               	3 000 000                                                          	2006-Feb-26 17:04:59                                               	2 000 000                                                          	2006-Mar-02 19:17:59
1 000 000                                                          	2006-Mar-06 21:22:47                                               	900 000                                                            	2006-Mar-07 07:10:09                                               	800 000                                                            	2006-Mar-07 16:57:08
700 000                                                            	2006-Mar-08 02:43:37                                               	600 000                                                            	2006-Mar-08 12:29:28                                               	500 000                                                            	2006-Mar-08 22:14:28
400 000                                                            	2006-Mar-09 07:58:14                                               	300 000                                                            	2006-Mar-09 17:40:04                                               	200 000                                                            	2006-Mar-10 03:18:30
100 000                                                            	2006-Mar-10 12:49:03                                               	90 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 13:45:11                                               	80 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 14:41:01
70 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 15:36:29                                               	60 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 16:31:30                                               	50 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 17:25:55
40 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 18:19:34                                               	30 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 19:12:06                                               	20 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 20:03:03
10 000                                                             	2006-Mar-10 20:51:45                                               	9 000                                                              	2006-Mar-10 20:56:32                                               	8 000                                                              	2006-Mar-10 21:01:21
7 000                                                              	2006-Mar-10 21:06:14                                               	6 000                                                              	2006-Mar-10 21:11:19                                               	5 000                                                              	2006-Mar-10 21:16:56
4 000                                                              	2006-Mar-10 21:24:45                                               	3 709                                                              	2006-Mar-10 21:31:20                                               	                                                                   	
: Ooh, halfway there. JamesHoadley 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little more than two-thirds the way there!  Is it me, or does the fact that it seems that it being only halfway through with its travel is a little contradictory?  We are four months into the trip and we have four months left.  It seems that way, but then of course MRO has to decelerate or else it'll miss Mars altogether!  It also has a couple of course corrections.  Just a few of my thoughts. --Marsbound2024 03:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it will lose velocity as it travels away from the sun to Mars (exchangine Kinetic for Potential energy). I've never thought about that before. The course correction burns are just nudges, it's effectively in orbit until it gets to Mars. The orbit insertion burn (if there is one) and aerobraking puts an end to that nice Newtonian physics stuff. JamesHoadley 10:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Less than 10,000,000 kilometers remaining.  Time to start photographing Mars I think.  After all, they did photograph the Moon from this distance during calibration.  Look forward to orbit insertion. Marsbound2024 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ephemeris revised on [[October 13]] [[2005]] 

message: Would anybody oppose a conversion to the Cites.php refs format? Circeus 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, did it, if anybody disagrees, feel free to revert. Circeus 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, is this going to be put into a robot? JamesHoadley 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to be safe, notes 

message: ;Has anyone researched the MRO secondary mission as a communications relay? 
:After its primary mission, MRO is expected to spend two years as a communications relay between Earth and future spacecraft, like NASA's planned Phoenix lander in 2008 and the Mars Science Laboratory rover in 2010. Space.com
:--jwalling 03:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Mission Timeline 

message: I would suggest pulling out some of the sections on the instruments and creating specific articles for them, just to spread the love around. For example, the HiRES camera could then be placed in the :Category:Space cameras--Hooperbloob 19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on your proposed solution, we need a lot more structure than merely linking stuff through categories.  I think the scientific instrumentation section should be split off into its own article named Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter instruments (or something) and then linked to from this page.  Of course, it could also be in whatever category exists for space instruments (and a lot of the instruments onboard MRO aren't cameras, by the way), but its connection to the main MRO article needs to remain very explicit.  --Cyde Weys 19:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I'll buy that solution--Hooperbloob 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now be bold!  (You proposed it, now you get to implement it.)  --Cyde Weys 19:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't like the idea, but I don't see any other solution to the problem then to split up the article. Perhaps This article could be a overview of the mission, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Instruments for the technical data on the instruments and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Spacecraft for the space probe's structure and technical components. So that means moving out the mostly everything under Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter#Instrumentation to a new article and mostly everything under Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter#Engineering_data to another. Ah, I just don't like it but if everyone thinks it should be done then lets do it, I will put a tag up for spliting though I think we should get more input on this. --BerserkerBen 21:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary of the instrumentation should still remain the article. The child article could be linked in that section as . Same with other sections. Just my 2c. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the article should not be split into two.  The current article should stay where it is and not be moved to a specific spacecraft article.  What is suggested is merely that the instruments be turned into a sub-article and linked using .  --Cyde Weys 07:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The article is big, but we should only think about it when it gets to ~60kB (I think the official warning limit is 32kB for old versions of Netscape). Plenty of featured articles are bigger. On another point, HiRISE isn't really a space telescope, space telescopes are pointed to other bodies, cameras are taken to their bodies for study. For instance, Cassini's Narrow Angle Camera is a big reflecting telescope, but is designed to look at Saturn. --JamesHoadley 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally though a space telescope is a telescope in space.  Doesn't matter what it's pointing at :-P  Cyde Weys 07:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, literally all lenses, cameras and telescopes are telescopes, literally there are only microscopes and telescopes. I guess I think of the difference between cameras and telescopes as what I wrote above (telescopes aren't brought up to their target), but maybe you could find some other definition. I think they're calling it a telescope to emphasise its size. -- JamesHoadley 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is getting rather large 

message: I added info from my DVR recording of NASA TV's coverage of the orbital insertion (coverage of control room at JPL and audio of control room engineers and staff) and NASA TV's coverage of the post-orbital insertion press conference. JamesHoadley was asking that I reference that, but how? I can't find a transcript anywhere online of mission control or the press conference. I’m not even sure what reference type it qualifies as (Engineer N/A said this… ?). Spaceflightnow.com Mission Statues Center MRO As some of the information I guess I can cite that? If anyone can help that would be appreciated.--BerserkerBen 21:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just cite the TV. It doesn't look like there's specific advice on how to cite TV (see WP:Cite and Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations). I think you should cite the TV because it has more specific info (the temperature). Even though it has no web link, it's still verifyable (just more painfully!), so you should use it. --JamesHoadley 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I cite NASA TV? 

message: This will be a "current event" for the next several years, as the MRO will be still surveying the surface of Mars so I think it should be removed now that a week has passed since it enter's Mars's orbit. --Revolución hablar ver 01:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, the MER articles don't have a current event label. --BerserkerBen 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: current event tag

message: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
 
 
Spacecraft to visit the Planet Mars
Flybys
Mariner 4 | Mariner 6 | Mariner 7 | Mars 4 | Mars 7
Orbiters
Mars 2 | Mars 3 | Mariner 9 | Mars 5 | Viking 1 | Viking 2 
Phobos 2 | Mars Global Surveyor | Mars Odyssey 
Mars Express Orbiter | Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Landers and Rovers
Mars 2 | Mars 3 | Mars 6 | Viking 1 | Viking 2 
Mars Pathfinder | Spirit rover | Opportunity rover
Future
Rosetta |  Phoenix Scout | Phobos-Grunt | Mars Science Laboratory 
Beagle 2: Evolution | ExoMars | Astrobiology Field Laboratory
It's based on :Template:Mars_spacecraft, at the bottom of the article, but I think it would look good at the top and be more appropriate up there. I've edited it to be a bit narrower. JamesHoadley 04:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes usually only have information about the subject itself. Then there are the subject templates that go at the bottom of the article. I think a spacecraft infobox would be a good idea though. LEts see what feilds would it have? Image, Name, Location, Distance travelled (?), launched by (NASA,,ESA etc), Official Site, Parent spacecraft (for landers?), Launch Date,Power (solar, neucular). Hrm I willmake a sampleone. Great idea!!! -Ravedave 05:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right, this is probably inappropriate for an infobox, but it sure looks pretty! As for :Template:Mars_spacecraft, it should be more horizontal so it looks like other "navigators". --JamesHoadley 21:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be a good info box? 

message: Well, I decided to go to the next step towards the FA status, and request a peer review. The page is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/archive3. Thanks for the help. Tuvas 16:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Looking at some of the comments, we should probably expand the CTX, MARCI, and CRISM sections, to include somewhat more information. Could someone take charge of that? Tuvas 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding parts

message: Okay, there's also some parts that need to be condensed. I rather think that the launch timeline, overview, and aerobraking timeline could be condensed to just a few key points. The major dates should be kept, which would include launch, orbit, the end of aerobraking, start of the PSP, etc. What isn't needed is testing of MARCI, HiRISE, etc, those events won't interest the majority of people. I'm going to make some cuts to the article, it might need a bit of patching up afterwords though. Tuvas 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview section

message: Also, looks like the intro section could be combined together to make something a bit neater. I can't quite think of how to do it, but I'm sure it can be re-done. I don't want to get rid of anything from HiRISE, but now that there is a main article about it, perhaps it could be simplified... Perhaps it could be done in the simple sections of Cameras, other science instruments, and engineering instruments. Just tossing a few ideas out there. Tuvas 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrument Section

message: I'll try and fill out the infobox in a few hours, gotta get back to housecleaning for now... -Ravedave 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I think there are a few too many 'citation needed' tags here.. most of the information is readily available at NASA's website, so i don't really see the need for all the inline citations.. any thoughts? Mlm42 13:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message on your talk page.  Featured articles are expected to be amply sourced.  If the goal is to get this article submitted to FAC, then every statement tagged has to be referenced with a reliable primary source.  Otherwise, it will simply be rejected.  Jtmichcock 13:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got all of the citations needed, mostly taken from NASA's MRO website, but a few others added. There was a few cases of duplicate references used in the same section, I don't know what to do with that, but at least everything's cited at least once. Make sure that I didn't make any mistakes (I caught myself making one, but there might have been another one or two to have crept in.) Things are looking alot better (And with 70+ edits in the last 24 hours, it should be). Now, what else still needs to be done...Tuvas 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Citations needed"

message: I didn't want to jump in too much and step on any toes - you guys have been doing a great job with this article.  But a few things:<BR>
1) I reworded the opening paragraphs because when I read it the first time I got the impression that MRO was merely a stepping stone for future missions rather than a scientific mission of its own merit.<BR>
2) I concur with Tuvas' brief comment above: the science instrumentation section of this article currently reads like: MRO has HiRISE! (oh, and some other stuff too).<BR>
3) These sentences: "A few of the mission's main goals include mapping the Martian landscape with high resolution cameras [this is only one goal, not a few]. This is primarily to choose the best landing sites for future landers and rovers." made me grimace. Same comment as #1.  There's lots of cool science to be done NOT just in preperation for the next landers (and let's face it, pure science might have to be done for a few more years if MSL takes the Mars Polar Lander or Mars Climate Orbiter approach).  Assisting future missions has been a part of every Martian orbiter proposal but would never be funded if it was the primary objective. --will 07:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if my perception is skewed, but HiRISE is by far the most talked about part of the MRO, some of it's single images are larger in memory than entire missions before. I suppose alot of information on other uses can be found at the HiRISE website, I'll look into it to include some more of HiRISEs goals. SHARAD would be nice to include something, perhaps even MARCI. (Refering to the summary) CTX, MCS, and CRISM, while they are useful, they are not quite in the same range, meaning they won't have daily weather forcasts and such. I'll just toss a few ideas that should be included, but I don't have time to make them work now. 1. Using RADAR to possibly identify liquid water underneath the polar ice caps. 2. Daily weather forcast of Mars. 3. Using hi-resolution images to date the Martian surface. Those should do. Tuvas 15:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HiRISE is definitely exciting - no contest there.  But as someone who works in a community of VIS/NIR and thermal infrared scientists, all of us are talking about CRISM.  Certianly, HiRISE is the spotlight instrument, but it just makes me wince to see other instruments unloved. --will 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is CRISM the first visible-light ranged spectrometer to orbit MARS? Just curious, that's all. I guess though that it all just depends on your focus. I would like to hear though why everyone is so excited about CRISM. This not meant in a bad way, just curious, that's all. Tuvas 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken! I was actually thinking about starting a CRISM page, but just don't have the time right now....  The basic gist is that CRISM will be telling us something about chemistry and mineralogy of places imaged by HiRISE.  Hi-RISE will produce great images (which which is great for geomorphologists and outreach), but the compositions will be really key for many of the rest of the scientists (spectroscopists, geochemists, mineralogists, and petrologists).  CRISM has both targed and untargeted modes with spectral bands are specifically chosen to be looking for to look for locations with water.  It will cover "half the planet in the first few months" of the mission at low resolution (~150 m).  That has some pretty exciting implications for learning about the seasonal movement of water and ice, the development of CO2 frosts on the poles, where areas of hydrated minerals are located (past water?), if gullies are really formed by snowpack (as has been proposed), etc.  Plus the mineralogy of the near surface which gives you all kinds of information about how the Martian surface has evolved and even how the planet was formed. (Of course, you wouldn't learn this from CRISM's website whose designer must have totally flunked "Getting the public excited about your instrument" class.  HiRISE's was 1000x better.) --will 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: HiRISE has a dedicated PR person, she just does PR, the website, and gives tours, nothing else in the way of her job. It helps us. I do remember that when we took our first picture, we noticed one area that showed up on our blue-green alot brighter than the red and NIR, we were going to pass it to CRISM for a target. So, what you way makes sense now. Thanks! Tuvas 00:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. I'll have to think about it. It took me a long time to get the HiRISE article to something decent, so you're allowed some time. I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll see what I can do to help you. Tuvas 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and if you wish, feel free to expand the info on this page, and create a section for CRISM, just so long as it's a paragraph or two, it's fine. I'll put in a request to the Mars Spacecraft wikiproject to help with CRISM, and will work on it tommorow (If I have time) Tuvas 03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't help (much), but I did get it nominated for DYK article, I guess that's something. Tuvas 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I saw that! Thanks for getting that up!--will 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly skewed 

message: I noticed that the listed orbital period of the MRO is 25 hours according to here. I work with the HiRISE team, and have a way to find a more current orbital period (With about a half-hour of precision), I know that it's about 21 hours, and it's decreasing quite quickly. However, this is something that is changing every day by a few minutes, is it really worth it to include yet? Perhaps we should just list the desired orbital perameters, and leave it at that? Tuvas 15:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I shouldn't have added it, I had the perapsis and apoapsis added as well, but then commneted them out. I suppose none of the orbital figures will be static until aerobraking is complete. I'll removed it till then. Thanks! -Ravedave 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital Period 

message: I don't know about you all, but in my mind, the Science instrumentation should be placed before the engineering data, that's where the meat of the spacecraft is, and not in the engineering data. Comments? Tuvas 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I like it better this way.  --will 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering data vrs Science instrumentation 

message: Is it more appropriate to say "The MRO" than just "MRO"?  For example, "The MRO will demonstrate new technologies." vs. "MRO will demonstrate new technologies."  I ran into the same question when editing the Mars Global Surveyor page and wanted to know if there was some consensus.  Personally I think I prefer it sans "the" just because that's what I hear everyone say.  But perhaps it's personifying the spacecraft? Is one more correct than the other or are there strong opinions either way?  --will 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard it both ways, and in general, it's easier to just say MRO. Either style is okay, however. Tuvas 14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did a search for this, and found that NASA uses MRO, as does HiRISE (Using their internal documents, not publicly avaliable...). So, I've changed everything to consistantly say only MRO, omit the the in front of it. Tuvas 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly formating:  MRO or "the MRO" 

message: Hey all. After some careful consideration, I've come to realize that it would be nice if we could continue such colaberation that we have had for this article, to improve similar articles. In the efforts to do so, I decided to create the Wikipedia:WikiProject: Mars Spacecraft. It's still in need of a great cleanup, but, I think it might just be worthwhile, once everything is nice and orderly. Only a few sections are really opened (What is there is a template that I used to start up), but, the task section is opened. It's probably not quite good enough for general use, however, I would like your input, feedback, and help. Thanks! Tuvas 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject: Mars Spacecraft 

message: Anyone know what the durtion of the MRO mission is? If so please additto the infobox. -Ravedave 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "official" duration is 2 years, after which it will enter extended mode. No one knows exactly how long it will last, but it will likely be quite some time. Tuvas 01:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Duration 

message: I went through the entire article today and tried to standardize the units (i.e. writing them out vs. abbreviations).  The Wikipedia:Manual of Style was not an incredible help, but I made up a few rules to follow that I thought looked good.  I don't think any of these are set in stone, but as a reader, I tend to like consistency.  Please object, add, or change if you find something wrong or inane:
In order of precedence:
#Write the units out if they are after spelled out numbers, e.g. seven miles, 10 million kilometers
#Use symbols if directly after a numeral, e.g. 20 km, 15 K, 25 kg
#Time is never abbreviated unless it's part of a fraction, e.g. 15 seconds, three hours, 15 m/s, 25 m²/h
#By default "mi" stands for statute mile (it must be specified to be "Nautical")
By "precedence" I mean the first rule trumps the third (i.e. if the value is written out, the units should be too, even if it's time in a fraction.  E.g. seven meters per second, NOT seven m/s).
Any thoughts?  It would be nice to standardize some of the scientific style. --will 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style for Units 

message: I split the Overview out of Overview, launch, and orbit insertion today as it seemed a bit of an interjection (the article really went Launch, Overview, and Orbit Insertion).  Then I scanned up to the lead, and back to the overview, and back to the lead....  Essentially, I think the overview would be a GREAT way to shorten the lead which I've been thinking is long in some parts.  But if there's serious objection to that then I think the overview should be IN the lead shouldn't it (they have a lot of the same information already)? Any takers either way? --will 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, my view is that the lead is the right length, not too long, nor too short, as it stands right now. Tuvas 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's cool by me too.--will 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro/Lead vs. Overview 

message: Well, we've officially failed the FAC process (And we were so close too...) Anyways, what should we do next? We can do one of two things, either try for a peer review again, or just take the article apart ourselves, either way applying for FA status in about a month? Thoughts anyone? Tuvas 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is good, we know that. I think we should wait till the MRO is in a stable orbit and doing science before applying again. Then everything should be pretty static, and I am confident it shall succeeed.  -Ravedave 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but I still think it might be a good idea to go through another peer review. The end of the FAC process brought out alot of ideas that might well be able to improve this article. Tuvas 17:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in.  It seemed like the main opposition was really the stability issue, which suprised me really.  However, that pretty much means no FA for ... well months if not a year.  But I also agree that the other comments - another strong copy edit, perhaps less pictures, longer sections on individual instruments, etc. should be discussed.--Will.i.am 21:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to making this article a FA until the primary science mission is over (~2 years), first of all try implementing some of those PR ideas first before going under another PR! Second it won't be stable until after its science mission is over before and during which alot of discoveres are going to be made. --BerserkerBen 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What next? 

message: One of the FAC notes was that the article had too many images. I think they are partially right as I think :Image:MRO_CTX_camera.jpg, :Image:MRO_MARCI_experiment.jpg, and  :Image:MRO_CRISM_prelaunch_2.jpg are all pretty boring. I am going to remove :Image:MRO_CTX_camera.jpg and :Image:MRO_MARCI_experiment.jpg if there are no objections. Also is there anything else that needs to be done? I know the orbital data needs to be added to the infobox, however that data wont be stable until aerobreaking is complete. -Ravedave 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Object!, There was only one objection to the images and many others seem to be impressed and approving of images. If you have to remove images then only remove images that won't be orphaned, there are alot of MFAH that will delete orphaned images very quickly, before they can be put to good use somewhere else.--BerserkerBen 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further cleanup 

message: I ran the auto peer review script on this just to see. Strike trough stuff that is verfied or completed.The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Ravedave 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer review 

message: Well, that time has finally come, MRO's now in a transitional orbit, AFAIK, almost right on the planned orbit. I'm not positive yet, so don't quote me... Anyways, we need to make some changes to reflect that aerobraking is over, probably as soon as we have confirmation. Tuvas 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerobraking's over 

message: Okay folks, PSP is just around the corner, final testing for MRO starts this week! Yah! But, that means we're going to have to go through this site quite a bit. I know there's probably alot of "This instrument will do this" type of references, we should work on changing them to the present tense. I beleive that we now have all instruments on line, ei, there isn't really anything else major that can go wrong in the transition phase, we'll find out when transition imaging takes place at the end of this month. I think we should polish this article up, and push for a FA in early October, about the time that the solar conjuction is taking place. That means the results of the vote should be done by the end of solar conjunction, just in time for PSP:-) I'm going to remove the current event tag, as there isn't really that much more to be had in the way of current events. I also took the oporunity to archive the talk page, it was needing it, and it's a good time to start again. Comments? Tuvas 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What will being FA do? I would rather wait until after the primary science mission is over. --BerserkerBen 11:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait 2 years?? Thast a bit much. I would prefer to wait until the science mission gets underway for a little bit and preferrably until after it sends back its first high quality photo. At that point all of the article execpt one or two sentances will be in past tense. After that I can't imagine many peopel will think the article could change alot. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: High-quality photos from all of the instuments will be avaliable in the next few weeks. I totally agree, two years is a bit excesive... HiRISE takes it's next pictures on Oct. 29th, SHARAD has already taken pictures, as has MCS. I think MARCI has too, but, I'd have to check that one out for sure... CTX and CRISM are both about the same time as HiRISE (I don't have the exact table in front of me, but everything I've seen says it'll be about the same time). Since MRO is in it's final orbit, all of these things are the real deal, so... Of course, they won't be released to the public right away, so, it might be better for those. HiRISE will release it's first image the 29th, ASAP, the rest of the images will also be released as they come in, for the most part (Exceptions being ones that might have a press release behind them). Among the sights will be Victoria Crater, current home of Opportunity. Should be fun, I can't wait:-) However, if the previous case is to show us what to expect, we can expect that the other instruments will lag (HiRISE has the fastest turnover, however, it also has the most money of any of the instruments, thus the most resources...) Tuvas 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about scientific discovers made by MRO? Can the article be made a FA without considering the vast amount of information that as you mention are just days away from just starting to be delivered. I can see people at a FA discussion opposing FA status using my argument. By the way what will getting FA statues provide now that can’t wait 2 years? --BerserkerBen 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSP 

message: Why can't the "other cameras" get there own labels, other instruments like the MCS and SHARAD which have equally small amount of text get their own titles. I think for aesthetics and NPOV that those cameras get there own titles. If there are no objections I will make the changes within days. --BerserkerBen 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other cameras 

message: I think it might be a good time to request a new peer review, there have been quite a few changes since the last one, and I wouldn't mind an extra set of eyes to make sure we got everything ready for PSP. Tuvas 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: We've been ignoring the Timeline of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter page, I think I've got it mostly up to date, with a few of the notable future dates now listed. You might want to check it, and make sure. Tuvas 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: For anyone interested, all instruments on MRO have been turned on, deployed, lens caps removed, etc, for the first time ever!!! So, everything is now set for transition imaging, which will begin Friday, at least for HiRISE, I don't know about the other instruments... Still, it's exciting! Tuvas 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another update, two instruments released their first images today from Science orbit, HiRISE and CRISM. I can get the links the the sites if you want them, but they are pretty easy to find. I don't have time at the moment to post anything, but you might want to update them. Tuvas 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow amazing pictures! I've uploaded the one HiRISE image :Image:MRO first image from mapping orbit PIA08789.jpg, please feel free to use it! --Bricktop 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wait till the full image comes up. There are things I'm still thinking, wow, that's just amazing, and it's only the begining... I can't remember off the top of my head, but the number 10000 seems to stick out in my head, as the number of images we'll eventually receive... And this image is only a fraction of the first... Tuvas 01:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just FYI 

message: Can anyone find details on the current orbit for addition to the infobox? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See : The altitude of the orbit ranges from 250 kilometers (155 miles) to 316 kilometers (196 miles) above the surface. --Bricktop 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit 

message: "NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has failed to spot the silent Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft. The agency will next call on the Opportunity rover to listen for the missing spacecraft's radio beacon, though mission members say MGS may already be dead."
. Not sure if its inclusion worthy. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRO fails to find MGS 

message: Checkout this cool image...
:yowzah, that's impressive.. Mlm42 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it was pretty amazing how the shadow of the mast could be seen. Maybe I should crop it and add it to the article to show the resolution that can be accomplished. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we put that image in we should start to worry about how big the "Events and discoveries" is going to be 1-2 years if we keep adding images at a rate of 1 a month. Is there any way we could get a image of opportunity taken by MRO orbiter with some deconvolution routines run on it, or have they already done that?--BerserkerBen 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All images released to the public from HiRISE have been deconvoluted. But that mainly only matters for the high-precision measurements, HiRISE by itself is able to be within 100 counts or so even without processing, with 16k possibilities. And yes, there are some geometric features and such that are corrected, but the products released are the most accurate representation that we can get, and they get more accurate constantly. However, it is an exciting thing, we'll worry about an increasingly large events and discovery section when there's alot more things there... Tuvas 21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is just that it looks like the color layers are not matted well, they seem to be slightly off from each other, but what ever. I'm going to move the timeline link down to discovers & events section. --BerserkerBen 15:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: The article is a jumble of past, present and future tense sentences, someone needs to go through the article and fix these things. For example: "MRO will carry a variety of engineering instruments" needs to be change to "MRO carries a variety of engineering instruments" and that just one of many many  sentances that states things that have already happened. Now this is just my idea but I think it would be best to make as many past tense statements as possible, as things that have happened don't need to be changed in the future. For example: "MRO joins four other spacecraft currently studying Mars: Mars Express, Mars Odyssey, and two Mars Exploration Rovers." might be better as "MRO joined five other spacecraft at that time studying Mars: Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Mars Express, and two Mars Exploration Rovers." This way future corrections to the statements are not needed. If no one objects eventually I'll get on it--BerserkerBen 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly done. I may have changed some things from "will" to does without obtaining correct facts such as the prediction that 70% of the fuel would be used on orbital insertion. I think the article is ok for now though. I think in 3-6 months when there is more information released the article can be updated and cleaned up. -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense

message: Is the mission duration the time the it is active or the time it is doing science?  -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MRO will (hopefully!) be doing science for several years to come, maybe a decade or more, but it's primary science phase will only last 2 years, after which it will do science still, but it will continue to do other things as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.214.161.240 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mission duration 

message: -Ravedave 19:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: I'm confused from the article whether the CTX camera is taking images 30 or 40km across.  Both figures are given.  Maybe this could be checked and corrected?  Or if correct but in different contexts, it could be reworded to be more clear? sjwk 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited link and this link give 30 km so I just deleted the 40 km reference. -- JamesHoadley (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTX camera 

message: To add - HiRise catches avalanches in action-  http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_007338_2640 - Ravedave (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HiRise catches avalanches in action 

message: Hi,
I think the picture on this site:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20080303earth.html
would be worth adding to the page. It's the Earth and the Moon photographed by the HiRise camera from Mars. Anybody bother?
(March 6, 2008, 09.20 MET)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.248.80 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded it to Wikimeda Commons; but to be honest, I got no idea as of where in the article I should insert it; it's pretty full of images already. --Harald Khan  Ճ 19:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HiRise takes picture of Earth and the Moon from Mars 

message: The MRO was not part of the tests for a "space internet protocol"
It was done by Epoxy and a ground based network.
[]
Unless there is some other news that I could not find in NASA's site, I believe that section should be removed?
Diego bf109 (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Internet 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Curiosity's Seven Minutes of Terror.ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on August 6, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Curiosity's Seven Minutes of Terror.ogv]]

message: Could this NASA MRO website be added to the infobox? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/main/index.html
It seems each organization: NASA and JPL, each create their own website.
Thank you,Jcardazzi (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Add NASA MRO website http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/main/index.html 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060228203742/http://www.space.com:80/missionlaunches/missions/mars_mission_001106.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/mars_mission_001106.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060212195951/http://www.space.com:80/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mro_lockheed_011003.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mro_lockheed_011003.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041210171953/http://space.com:80/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_2005_mars_001026.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_2005_mars_001026.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone, I think this article should say a bit more about its sun synchronous orbit. This is especially relevant for its observations of the Recurrent Slope Lineae. They can only be observed close up at around 3 pm local time - scientists would like to observe them in the early morning, but are forced to observe at the least likely time to find evidence of liquid water there because of the orbit chosen for its science orbit.
See "MRO and Odyssey are the two NASA orbiters with Proximity-1 relay communications
capability. Their orbits are Sun synchronous. Each time the orbiter crosses over Mars’ equator
from south to north, the mean local solar time (LST) at the ground directly below is 3:00 p.m.
(MRO) or 5:00 a.m. (Odyssey). " from section 1.4 of http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/DPSummary/MRO_092106.pdf
It's orbit also has an inclination of 93 degrees, see page 9 of that paper. And orbital period 1 hr 52 minutes.
I think the article has all that information except the information about the timing "Each time the orbiter crosses over Mars’ equator
from south to north, the mean local solar time (LST) at the ground directly below is 3:00 p.m." which I think is worth mentioning because of its relevance to RSL observations. And it could be worth highlighting all this in a separate section as well as the mention you already have in the right panel. Just suggestions. Robert Walker (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun synchronous orbit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510140909/http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/newsroom/pressreleases/20050812a.html to http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/newsroom/pressreleases/20050812a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221190147/http://onorbit.com/node/1524 to http://onorbit.com/node/1524
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502170707/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/7832/1/03-2150.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/7832/1/03-2150.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EE9oKZFn?url=http://airandspace.si.edu/research/ceps/cepsicons/highlights/fact_sheet_front.pdf to http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/ceps/cepsicons/highlights/fact_sheet_front.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604231953/http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_instru_sharad.html to http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_instru_sharad.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308192059/http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_instru.html to http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mission/sc_instru.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011181415/http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/HiBlog/ to http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/HiBlog/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510132629/http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/imported_content/lesson_1803.html to http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/imported_content/lesson_1803.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018223203/http://grctechlib.grc.nasa.gov/public/Digital/sg/MarsScout/Mars%20Reconnaissance%20Orbiter%20Aerobraking%20Reference%20Trajectory.pdf to http://grctechlib.grc.nasa.gov/public/Digital/sg/MarsScout/Mars%20Reconnaissance%20Orbiter%20Aerobraking%20Reference%20Trajectory.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510130429/http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/imported_content/lesson_1796.html to http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/imported_content/lesson_1796.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Inclusion of the calculations to the Darian calendar is misleading here.  It implies a level of acceptance, even officialness that does not exist. The Darian calendar is a proposal, among many, for time keeping on Mars.
The closest thing we have to a Mars calendar is the year numbering system is what most scientists use, especially in comparing atmospheric data from year to year.  Years begin from the northern hemisphere vernal equinox in (Earth) 1955 and are tracked by solar longitude from there. --MadeYourReadThis (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late, but I agree. I've removed it because it isn't used on any other articles. ARandomName123 (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darian calendar in infobox