Talk:Genesis (spacecraft)

message: It seems to me that there clearly is a crater visible in the picture. Do my eyes deceive me? We should bring back that sentence in the text! Awolf002 12:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the root problem is differing definitions of "crater". While I respect that there is no universally accepted definition, dictionary.com says a crater is "a bowl-shaped depression in a surface made by an explosion or the impact of a body". I don't see a bowl-shaped depression in the picture; just the craft itself half-embedded in the ground. So, I think it's probably best to leave it out. --Christopher Thomas 19:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I would argue that most people would answer "no" to that question. I suggest that a reasonable ad-hoc decision criterion would be that in order to be called a "crater", a hole must be considerably larger than the object that created it. However, please note that I haven't altered the article myself. --Christopher Thomas 00:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No crater? 

message: I edited the paragraph below. It was a little hard to read. In fact, I couldn't gork what it was intended to mean and the edits may have introduced error or stripped off important information. google could fix that, but gosh, I am lazy. If someone has the information on his mind already, help please.
A first possible lead to the root cause of the failed deployment of the parachutes were announced in a October 14 press release. Lockheed Martin had designed the system with an acceleration sensor upside down and design reviews had not caught the mistake. Instead of making an electrical contact at 3 g (29 m/s²), maintaining it through 30 g (290 m/s²). Above 30 g, the sensor would realise the electrical contact, triggering release of the parachute. The flawed design would only have worked if gravity was lowered and no contact was therefore ever made.
: Your edits have changed the description of how the "parachute release" was designed to happen. Let me check, which version is correct. Awolf002 15:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Awolf002 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you gathima 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit help 

message: Just wanted to ask what the point of including anything about Colin Pillinger was, considering the role he played was small, and as with his own Beagle 2 project, he did not design the landing system?  Just wondered, was all...
Thanks, Ralphybaby 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point on whether there is enough notability for mentioning him is well taken. However, 'defamation' does not seem to apply to the wording in that paragraph. I see no blame assigned in that text. Awolf002 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand - to be honest, I can't remember why I titled it that to start with... Ralphybaby 16:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation of Character? 

message: Anyone else find this picture (currently in this article) strange? You can clearly see a gloved hand in the picture, much smaller than you'd expect if the pencil was a true indicator of scale. And it's not just the hand, the whole instrument just looks bigger than the pencil would indicate, but the hand is the evidence. --80.202.99.208 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, sorry if I'm missing your point but it seems that you perhaps don't realize it is actually a composite image? The lower third or so with a white background is a closeup of a pencil and an accelerometer sensor, the remaining upper section is a wider shot where you can see what I think is the spacecraft's capsule and bus, presumably before launch and a technician's gloved right hand and sleeved left forearm. So the pencil isn't useful for scaling the hand, or anything else in the upper section for that matter. Granted though, the two sections of the composite image aren't really well connected as we're supposed to presume, I guess, that there's one or more of those accelerometers in the upper section somewhere, so the caption could be improved to reflect that and I'll see what can be done. RdeVjun (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. RdeVjun (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of accelerometer 

message: I have tagged the mention of Colin Pillinger with "clarify" and "relevance". Did Colin suggest Beagle's loss may have been related? Was he involved with Genesis's re-entry design? Otherwise why mention him?" -84user (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Colin Pillinger 

message: I've recast the sentence, "Because the solar wind particles are expected to be embedded in the wafers, whereas the contaminating dirt is likely just to lie on the surface, it may be possible to separate the dirt from the samples," in the past tense because the events described are now eight years in the past.
Poihths (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense fix 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genesis (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/20090429045928/http://web.gps.caltech.edu:80/genesis/ to http://web.gps.caltech.edu/genesis/
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) 05:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genesis (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/20100626214903/http://www.ess.ucla.edu/dir_detail.php?u_idx=135 to http://www.ess.ucla.edu/dir_detail.php?u_idx=135
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) 09:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genesis (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/20110721051158/http://research.jsc.nasa.gov/PDF/Ares-5.pdf to http://research.jsc.nasa.gov/PDF/Ares-5.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) 16:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I worked on the silicon wafers as an acid etcher and inspector during my time at a silicon wafer factory.  (I still would love to know why only the edges got acid etched.)  We referred to them as "hexagonal wafers" (technically, they were nonagons), while the job description was "solar dust collectors".  The only acid burn I ever suffered at the factory was during this job, and it was during a rinsing, of all things.  (Pro tip: Don't brush your hair out of your face with your gloves on.)
Not important enough to go in the article itself, but I thought someone might like to read this. 24.119.56.194 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia