Talk:BepiColombo

message: How does it compare / relate to MESSENGER ?82.120.124.201 6 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
::Without the lander, the science outcome will not so much different.--Stone (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I read this sentence... This drive will be especially tested by the unusual need to actually push against the direction of travel, instead of with it; the ship will be falling toward the sun, accelerated by its gravity, and will have to constantly fight to keep its velocity slow enough to eventually enter Mercury's orbit.... does this mean that the Ion Thruster Engine will actually be facing the Sun? (i.e. the Spacecraft being "the wrong way round"?) --Hibernian 17:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though the drive will not necessarily facing the sun directly, it will be facing into its intended direction of travel. --Kaz 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A few lines above that it says "it will keep propelling the craft for years, building up far more speed per mass of fuel in the long run" which probably should be rephrased somehow. Rod57 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will the Craft be pointing the opposite direction to Travel? 

message: After reading of the splitting after lunar trajectory, i wondered myself a theoretical question.
This might not be how this craft will be build but i just wonder how this works out in space.
Well here goes my question, if the chemical backpart-engine part would contain a gyroscope (or as a part would itself spin fast).
And next we would split the machine in two by a simple spring. Then would a gyroscope effect add extra mass /contra inertia ?
Resulting in that speed (arrow length) of both parts would be like this       frontpart<-----v2--------- . --v1-->backpart    
Where V2 would be larger then v1, i just wonder of a gyroscopic effect could be handy for this.
Its not directly related to this mission, but i'm curious to know.
82.217.115.160 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question about the splitting after lunar trajectory 

message: The ministerial meeting in November 2008 is the critical cornerstone of the mission, due to budget problems the ministerial has to give money for the project. Three big ESA missions are on the list for the money ExoMars, Solar Orbiter and BepiColombo and the chance that all three get enough money is not foreseeable, because the decission of the ministers is not clear yet.--Stone (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ministerial 

message: There is also a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bepicolombo; needs dismbiguation. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rod57 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bepicolombo 

message: AOCS is an unexplained term. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propulsion 

message: Can anyone add how far the design of the MSE got, and what technological problems remained ? Rod57 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design of MSE lander 

message: The graphic of the cruise from Earth to Mercury seems to be obsolete. It shows the old plan for a start in 2014, with an Earth flyby after one year and only two Mercury flybies. That cruise would have taken about 4 years instead of 6.
I'm not sure why the video on the homepage http://smsc.cnes.fr/BEPICOLOMBO/GP_mission.htm shows that old track, though, and I can't find any visualization of the planed track for start in 2017. Given that, I think that the graphic should be removed. Renerpho (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your wish was granted, in a roundabout way. Turned out that the cruise graphic was a copyright violation, taken from the CNES website (archived link) years ago. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete cruise 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BepiColombo. 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/20170108093835/https://discovery.nasa.gov/strofio.cfml to https://discovery.nasa.gov/strofio.cfml
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) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: " They will characterise the huge liquid iron core " - currently, the core is theorized to be part solid and part liquid - is the probe ONLY going to study that portion of the core, or does this need clarification? 50.111.19.178 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The mission will characterize the solid and a liquid core and determine the size of each. . Rowan Forest (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study of the core - tweaking? 

message: The thermal insulating jacket is to me the most interesting aspect of the spacecraft, but there is no information in the article.
DouglasHeld (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermal insulation blanket 

message: It goes too fast making it difficult to follow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.214.5 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is because a restriction of Commons; maximum of 50 megapixels. This file is 560 x 420 pixel x 200 frames = 47 megapixels. So I added "For more detailed animation, See this video.". This video is four times slower than the gif image.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation of BepiColombo's trajectory