Talk:Magellan (spacecraft)

message: "Weary of rapid shuttle launches, the decision was made to launch Magellan in May, and into an orbit that would require 1 year and 3 months before encountering Venus."
The subject of the sentence is "the decision". The adjective "weary" modifies the subject. However, presumably the decision is not weary. Was NASA weary?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.246.32 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence structure 

message: The article doesn't mention whether the ultimate crash of the probe was intentional.  Does anyone know?  --Doradus 18:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
: Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:20:42, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
::Yes, it was intentional. The main mission was long done, and sending it into the atmosphere was a fitting end. The explorer finally merged with what he was exploring. A fitting end.--Planetary 06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the destruction intentional? 

message: The first line of the Spacecraft design section states "Built largely from spare parts from both the Voyager and Galileo missions, the Magellan spacecraft was 4.6 metres (15.4 feet) long, topped with a 3.7 m (12 ft)."  My question is, a 3.7 m what?  My guess would be antenna but it would be better if someone who knows for sure could fix it.  -Nibios 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guessed right, it's probably the antenna which was a spare from the Voyager program. The high-gain antennas in Voyager probes are 3.7 meters in diameter.130.234.5.137 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacecraft design 

message: The first line says Magellan was the "first unmanned spacecraft to be launched by NASA since its successful Voyager 1 spacecraft to Jupiter and Saturn in 1977".. I would be inclined to think this means 'first unmanned INTERPLANETARY spacecraft', since there have obviously been numerous other satellites launched by NASA in that period.
Random Tree (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First unmanned spacecraft launched by NASA since 1977? 

message: The phrase "synthetic aperture radar" is a common noun, even though its abbreviation is SAR. Such things are actually quite common in English, and especially in technical English. For example "central processing unit" is abbreviated CPU, and ribonucleic acid is abbreviated RNA, and instrument landing system is abbreviated ILS.98.67.163.247 (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Also, synthetic aperture radar is an article in the Wikipedia, and hence this article must link to it because SAR was the key ingredient of the Magellan mission.98.67.163.247 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, ILS = the "instrument landing system" in aviation, and we are fellow travelers on that! But - for the last 25 years or so, the nitwits have been using ILS = "integrated logistics systems". This is a mess when we see Help Wanted ads for "ILS Engineers". As an electronics engineer, I could work as an ILS engineer if it had to do with radio electronics, radar, and the like. Next, the ILS was superseded by (or was attempted to be replaced by), the MLS = "microwave landing system". Nowadays, I think that they might use something connected with the GPS = "global positioning system".47.215.188.197 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, SAR = "search and rescue", also, and the SARSAT system is a search and rescue system, the International_Cospas-Sarsat_Programme, that utilizes special satellites in orbit. This all got started as a joint program between the U.S.A. and the USSR, with the cooperation of Canada and France. Its headquarters is in Montreal. 47.215.188.197 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthetic aperture radar 

message: The use of the unfamiliar "units" gal and milligal is unnecessary and uncalled for. This is especially true since 1.0 gal equals 0.01 meters per second per second = 0.01 meter/sec^2. Just express everything in terms of meter/sec^2. All this "unit" is is shifting of the decimal point by two places.
The "gal" is as unnecessary as the Angstrom unit, where 10 angstroms = 1.0 nanometer. The "gal" is as unnecessary as the "franklin", where 1.0 franklin = 1.0 statcoulombs, and the statcoulomb is not used very much, anyway.47.215.188.197 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since gals are commonly used in the relevant scientific literature, they should be used in Wikipedia as well. Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is to the contrary to what is said by the Systeme Internationale, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and so on and so forth. Do you wish to argue with the S.I. and NIST? The next thing that you know, you will be arguing with the ITU.47.215.188.197 (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Magellan (spacecraft). 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/20110721050617/http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/viewMissionProfile.jsp?MISSION_NAME=MAGELLAN to http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/viewMissionProfile.jsp?MISSION_NAME=MAGELLAN
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126122448/http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112188/magellan_probe.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112188/magellan_probe.htm
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) 06:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magellan (spacecraft). 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/20110721050651/http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/viewInstrumentProfile.jsp?INSTRUMENT_ID=RDRS&INSTRUMENT_HOST_ID=MGN to http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/viewInstrumentProfile.jsp?INSTRUMENT_ID=RDRS&INSTRUMENT_HOST_ID=MGN
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) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I just changed the number here for the orbit semimajor axis to 10470 km from something slightly larger than 7700 km.  The old value was clearly a mistake.  This new value is not directly attributable to a source; rather, it is the average of periapse and apoapse altitudes from further down in the box, plus the planetary radius of 6050 km.  This new number works with the given orbital period and the mass quoted for Venus using Kepler's 3rd Law.  A more definitive number and citation need to be found and put here.  BSVulturis (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For awhile (end of 2020 into the first half of this year) there was an IP address that was vandalizing this and other space articles; you can see what I mean here. A lot of the edits were arbitrary changes to numbers in infoboxes. Most of that user's edits were reverted, but it's possible stuff slipped through the cracks. I'd guess you found one of those that wasn't caught when it was new. Tisnec (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox entry for semimajor axis of orbit