Talk:Venus Express

message: Ok guys, enough with the microns.  I do not think it really matters whether or not microns are used, although I do think, for the sake of wikipedia, we should stick with micrometers.  Microns are still used quite often today and is thus not "Fred Flinstone" units.  Basically, nobody cares.  Let's leave it at that.
As far as the "Sentence in the intro is grammatically incorrect and confusing," I will work on that.  Relax people.  ;) --Marsbound2024 01:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chill Out

message: Yes.  Venus is approximately 0.7AU from the Sun and Mars is around 1.5AU (or roughly twice the distance from the Sun to Venus).  AU stands for Astronomical Unit, which is a unit that compares the distance from the Sun to the Earth with that of other objects.  Thus, Venus' orbit is only 0.3AU from Earth (or almost 28,000,000 miles).  There are about 93,000,000 miles in one AU.
--Marsbound2024 01:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Does this mean that the distance from the Sun to Venus is half of the distance from the Sun to Mars?"

message: It doesn't seem like all of those dates and years in the timeline should be linked.  There was no point in 11 consecutive links to 2005.  And the dates themselves aren't significant in any context outside of the Venus Express.  The  Wikipedia Manual of Style says to avoid unnecessary links and also that only full dates should be linked.  I tried converting the date links to full dates before removing them, but they were all red, so what was the point?  --Cyde 16:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, dates need to be linked in this manner to enable the user preference for date format. Please do not alter these. Rmhermen 18:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates (day+month) need to be linked everytime as Rmhermen explain. Years with no date need to be linked only once. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think there should be a reduction in links.  It is seemingly ridiculous to link "2005" so many times.  I can understand the month and day to an extent, but not the continuous 2005s.  Perhaps they merely signify a complete date and thus are more for aesthetic value than for anything else?  Meaning, their only purpose is to complement the month and day.  Just my thoughts. --Marsbound2024 17:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Late response, but this linking is a matter of software function, not personal opinion. Dates that are linked day month year do not properly function for user preference. Dates must be linked day month year. Rmhermen 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the years be linked? 

message: I think you did the right thing by removing all of those links to    2005.  It was getting ridiculous.  In fact, I see no reason for linking the entire date on these either.  Perhaps there should be a link to things such as "11 November", but other than that, if it is repeated, there is almost not need to link it again.  If this appears quite far down in an article and it is actually of significance, then it probably should be linked again.  Good call in my opinion, Cyde.  --Marsbound2024 17:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, dates need to be linked in this manner to enable the user preference for date format. Please do not alter these. Rmhermen 18:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates (day+month) need to be linked everytime as Rmhermen explain. Years with no date need to be linked only once. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think there should be a reduction in links.  It is seemingly ridiculous to link "2005" so many times.  I can understand the month and day to an extent, but not the continuous 2005s.  Perhaps they merely signify a complete date and thus are more for aesthetic value than for anything else?  Meaning, their only purpose is to complement the month and day.  Just my thoughts. --Marsbound2024 17:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Late response, but this linking is a matter of software function, not personal opinion. Dates that are linked day month year do not properly function for user preference. Dates must be linked day month year. Rmhermen 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't think so

message: :For example, since Mars is approximately twice as far from the Sun as Venus is, the heating of the spacecraft will be four times greater for Venus Express than Mars Express.
Should it be the other way around? Venus is closer so it should receive more heat. If heating here means "heat coming from the Sun" (as opposed to the heating systems mentioned in the last sentence) then this sentence probably needs rewording since as it stands it is somewhat ambiguous. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this sentence correct? 

message: You also misunderstood it.  It is not referring to heating caused by the spacecraft, but by the Sun.  I suppose I should edit it and say "solar heating" or an equivalent. --Marsbound2024 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It does seem ambiguous

message: I was checking out this and it lookes like there's a lander on the Venus Express?  I knew that Rosetta has a lander, but I didn't know that Mars Express had a lander!  But Beagle 2 lander wasn't sucsessful (to bad!).  But does this mean that VEX has a lander?  If it does, I have some questions:
:*What is it called?
:*Where will it land?
:*When will it land?
I'll try to find out about this right now.  But if you know anything, help me. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the official web site and look under About Venus Express. There is no such thing as a lander. Awolf002 21:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't a lander, what's this sopost to represent? — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dunno, just a picture? Read this at the ESA wbe site to see what is studied as an "advanced concept". Awolf002 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Venus Express is a standalone spacecraft.  Past and future missions have/may incorporate(d) probes/landers, but not this mission [Venus Express]. --Marsbound2024 03:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lander? 

message: It is--to put it mildly--unfortunate that VEX does not have an imaging radar. I added a sentence to indicate this. Since Magellan did have one and since it accomplished the amazing feat of pealing back the atmosphere to show the planet surface, we have another example here of space programs taking giant leaps backwards, no doubt due to budget constraints. I think it is in the interest of full disclosure to point this out (using neutral language). This is not to disparage in any way the instrumentation that does exist on the VEX platform. 
Rob Fatland
: There's no harm in mentioning this difference between Magellan and VEX, but the word 'unfortunately' is not neutral! The mission was not intended as a radar mapping mission, it was designed to do other things. It's like saying 'Unfortunately, the Ford Mondeo does not have wings, and thus cannot fly' - accurate, but not exactly fair. :) The Singing Badger 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A synthetic-aperture radar system and its requirements are pretty complex and would be best included in a separate probe.  Since Magellan mapped most of the surface at pretty high resolution, I'm not sure that would be a scientific priority. DonPMitchell 19:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface imaging 

message: Will the ESA post the images and data from Venus Express somewhere?  Not just a few highly-processed images for the press, but all the data.  The European Space Agency seems much less open than NASA with its data.  But if there is a site, let's find it and include it in the links.  DonPMitchell 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it, I'm afraid. I know they won't release anything much, though some highly processed press release images are better then nothing. Perhaps those could be fit in somewhere?--Planetary 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it does kind of suck. Their images aren't free to use either like NASA's are. I've been working on the atmosphere of Venus article since I created it a few days back and I wish I could put in the image of that double cyclone near the south pole. Well, at least they sent the probe there. Mithridates 10:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still next to nothing. I haven't seen a mission as boring (boring being defined as no interesting status reports) as this one in quite some time. And Venus is my favourite planet too. Mithridates 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I can understand it for those without a camera on board, like Ulysses, but for Venus Express? Get a move on ESA! --Planetary 15:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Data 

message: The information regarding the magnetometer experiment is incorrect, or just badly explained.
>The magnetometer is designed to measure the strength of Venus's magnetic field and the direction of it as affected by the solar wind and Venus itself
Venus does not have an intrinsic magnetic field, however the ionosphere does interact with the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) creating the phenomena described.
:While Venus does not have an intrinsic magnetic field generated by an internal dynamo, it does have an induced, or "draped", field due to the interaction with solar wind. Most space physicists refer to "Venus's magnetic field", so the sentence is technically correct, although clunky. 128.97.94.95 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mag Info 

message: Rather than argue about why scientists shouldn't use kgf for thrust, it might be more relevant to delve into some meaty topics about Venus Express.  For example, the page makes no mention of the fact that the PFS instrument has failed.  It makes no mention that the VMC camera system is experiencing problems.  There are no photos included from the VIRTIS camera.  And there is no discussion of the controversial policy of the ESA to keep data and images unavailable to the public for an extended time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.16.187 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that would all be interesting. Was it a wildly successful mission or a disappointment ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more interesting topics 

message: Surely this should be either "1 h after launch" or "1 min after launch", but which? Please correct this if you know the right answer. Thanks! -- 77.21.99.8 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1 h  min after launch"?? 

message: http://news.discovery.com/space/europe-monitors-venus-express-orbiters-fading-ghost-150112.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.167.18 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: got a single as late as the 19th. I guess leave it to say Tuesday and then that really is it.©Geni (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference for last signal http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2015/01/23/venus-express-the-last-shout/ .©Geni (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the last signal was now more than a week ago and the thing would have been orbiting below venus's Kármán line I think it is safe to assume that the probe no longer exists.©Geni (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe Monitors Venus Express Probe's Fading 'Ghost' 

message: Not open access mind
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3733.html
©Geni (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New paper about Venus Express's findings with regards to venus's atmosphere

message: Only the aerobraking experiments are briefly mentioned. - Rod57 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone say what was done and discovered in the various mission extensions  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Venus Express. 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/20080307024329/http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/venus-express/vmc/ to http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/venus-express/vmc/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402104722/https://www.mps.mpg.de/2416908/VMC-Dokumentation.pdf to https://www.mps.mpg.de/2416908/VMC-Dokumentation.pdf
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) 10:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified