Talk:Mars sample-return mission

message: This is an open discussion of the bias and errors in the BC section of the current article. It has just been archived by BatteryIncluded. For reference, here it is, so you can still read it and see what the issues are with that section:
Bias and errors in the back contamination section
In brief summary, based on the Office of Planetary Protection and studies sponsored by the National Research Council, European Space Foundation and SETI (for the legal material):
# Article says risk is likely to be zero. The PPO says that the risk is thought to be very low but not demonstrably zero. Why not use the actual words of the OPP? (Especially so if the statements are different in meaning as WP claims).
# It says that a biohazard 4 facility is sufficient. The studies say biohazard 4 containment is required but not sufficient to contain a MSR, because it has to contain unknown biohazards possibly smaller than an ultramicrobacteria, and must also double as a clean room. This needs a new design, as no existing facility has these capabilities. 
# On the legal situation it only mentions the domestic legal requirements. The sources prominently discuss international legal requirements.
# It represents concerns about environmental disruption of the Earth as an ICAMSR concern only. This concern dates back to Carl Sagan and is shared by all the official studies as a worst case scenario.
:: The difference between the ICAMSR and the official POV is over whether the hazard can be contained. There is no dissension over the nature of the worst case hazard.
Those are the inaccuracies. The bias arises because the overall impression as a result of those omissions is that back contamination is a minor matter easily contained, and of no significance. That is the POV of Zubrin, a minority POV which is as extreme as the POV of the ICAMSR in the opposite direction.
I tagged the BC section of this page with a POV-section tag pointing to that discussion, and a dubious tag to the section but they were removed the same day by WarrenPlatts with the discussion the POV-section pointed to open, which you are not supposed to do. Robert Walker (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias and errors in the back contamination section

message: Can we now archive the above discussion from 2013 ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we now archive the above discussion from 2013 ? 

message: FYI Talk:International_Committee_Against_Mars_Sample_Return#Replace_with_redir NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI - 2018 

message: NASA has awarded contracts for some construction - eg of the lander aeroshell (backshell and heatshield). Lockheed Martin aeroshell selected for next Mars lander June 2021.
Should we extend the History section with recent progress, or start a new section ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we extend History with recent progress 

message: In the Additional Plans section :
* France : it mentions a 2002 plan by France. Is France still going alone, or is it now part of the ESA 2020 plan ?
* SpaceX : SpaceX/Musk had announced intentions to land humans by 2024 or 2026 and return them a few years later - They would bring back samples. Should we not mention that here ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional plans 

message: Is the term Mars sample-return mission (or MSR) to be restricted to return missions bringing samples from the planet Mars in itself, or should it be extended to missions bringing samples from the Mars system, including Phobos and Deimos?
This is an important question, since both the Russian Fobos-Grunt and the Japanese MMX are MSR's only in the second sense. Thus, if we emply the restricted sense to the scope of this article, then the MMX section should be removed; but if we allow for the fuller sense, then Fobos-Grunt should be added. In either case, the present choice (i. e., including MMX but excluding Fobos-Grunt) is untenable.
My personal opinion leans towards the extended sense, inter alia since a mission to the vicinity of Mars naturally may include studies of both the planet and its moons.  Thus, I would prefer to add Fobos-Grunt to the article.  However, if there is an established practice of employing MSR only in the restricted sense, then we perhaps should follow that practice, and instead remove MMX.  Is there such a practice? JoergenB (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What EXACTLY is an MSR? 

message: ‎ I am sorry but the thing is that I have done a case study on these footnotes they explain the concept details please keep them till we get separate pages for such missions I have kept them in footnote to lessen the size of text but they are really explanatory. For example in one footnote I explained the rocket engine of the man. so please don't remove. If you need to remove add them in the page at specific location Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chinakpradhan I removed your edits as they count as basically vandalism as the footnotes are not how wikipedia works. Filling an article with footnotes is non-standard wikipedia editing. Ergzay (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  then shall I include them directly into the Wikipedia article because as I said they are important  Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chinakpradhan Please feel free, though be careful about including too much extra information that isn't relevant. Less information is often better. Ergzay (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A0h all the footnotes have important I added them through footnotes as I needed to maintain  the size of test I will add them now Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chinakpradhan When responding on talk pages, please make sure to indent your comments so that the comment thread can be easily read. I've edited the page and indented your comments for you for this page as an example. Ergzay (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And , I have added the most important footnotes in the page directly with a comment  Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chinakpradhan Can you clean up the text some? It is very difficult to understand what is being said. Ergzay (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I added the special elements in orbiter and fetch rover and the condition and way of functioning of mav in the whole journey . Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened them upto the limit I can before publishing them in footnotes and to keep them short I added them in footnotes  Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

text: @Chinakpradhan That wasn't what I was asking. Ergzay (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

text: So what Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've flagged the article so that someone can come and clean things up. I don't have the time to deal with it. Ergzay (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't remove footnotes in 2020 proposal 

message: need to restructure this page. i knew single srl wont work 2 will be needed 
here's it https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-reveals-europa-clipper-cost-growth-mars-sample-return-replan/#.YjlQ7CKUGCw.twitter
please restructure this page. Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How can NASA "replan" a mission with strong ESA involvement? Getting a second perspective would help here. And what is "SRL" in the article - sample return lander? Neither SRL1 nor SRL2 are introduced. --mfb (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

text: @Chinakpradhan You often edit articles only based on speculation. You add things to the article as if they are confirmed when these are only hypothetical studies at this point. The entire page is based off of hypothetical studies. Please don't take things so seriously. Ergzay (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  restructure nasa esa mars sample return mission 

message: FYI.  A long time ago I added an  template to the Mars 2020 mission section of this article, to include the text of Perseverance (rover)#Samples cached for the Mars sample-return mission (so people wouldn't have to edit the two pages in parallel).  At some point, two images were added to the Perseverance section and also picked up here, which wasn't my intent.  I've reworked the template to omit them.  If anyone does want one or both of these images you should add them manually to this page.  They're actually pretty good; I just think they should be included explicitly and intentionally, not picked up mysteriously from another page. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified <nowiki>{{excerpt}}</nowiki> to remove two images 

message: The table of sample details in the List of samples cached section was approaching half of the content in the article, which makes it hard to read the end of the article and is questionable in light of WP:BALASP, so I've collapsed it.  You now have to click the "[show]" button in the section to see the table. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsed table of sample details