Talk:Mars Exploration Rover

message: What is this little round brushy thing on the rover arm in this picture (nearer to the "elbow")?  I've never noticed it before and I think they only use the little brushes on the RAT for brushing off rocks etc., so what's this thing do?--Deglr6328 10:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird thing

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article doesn't show the time/date of the end of the mission. Drahcir  my talk  16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because the mission is in progress and there is no definitive date when to end the mission.  The most recent mission extension is through September 2006 I do believe.  If it appears the rovers are still sufficiently operational and scientifically valuable as the extension nears an end, NASA may choose to extend it even further (presumably into 2007).  --Marsbound2024 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading this exchange at this time just makes me smile. :) - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgotten part 

message: Basically on references. Lincher 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Please explain. TestPilot 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: Hi all,
I run the GAAuto script for the good articles list that alerts me to changes in the status of articles.
I noticed that this article has run into some controversy regarding whether or not it should be a good article. I have therefore delisted it for the time being and placed an entry for it in the disputes section of the good article project.
Please feel free to submit your opinions on whether or not this article qualifies for good article status there.
Cedars 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article dispute 

message: "On January 21, the Deep Space Network lost contact with the Spirit rover, for reasons originally thought to be related to a thunderstorm over Australia."
January 21 of what year? Think we need a full date here...
--Longman391 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that.  --Marsbound2024 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary clarification. Date needs year. - Fixed 

message: I know the reference does not indicate February 6th as the date, but the JPL Home Page SAYS it reached 10 kilometers "during a drive on February 6th."  The images and articles were not uploaded until the next day on the 7th.  Please visit www.jpl.nasa.gov for confirmation.  In the future I am sure this will be verified in the status update reports on the Mars Exploration Rover home page. --Marsbound2024 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be nice to have a section explaining why it is that the rovers have outlived their expected mission by so long (1400% by my count).  Was this just sand-bagging by the engineers who designed the rover?  Or is everyone really surprised by the long life of the rovers?  What systems were expected to fail within three months, and why have they instead lasted 3.5 years?  It seems like the engineers greatly underestimated the robustness of their machines.  Westwind273 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opportunity Reaches 10 Kilometer Mark 

message: Guys, it would be great if you created an independent section concerning the discoveries that the Rovers made. Maybe you can add information form Scientific information from the Mars Exploration Rover mission article? 59.101.161.148 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Discoveries

message: I may sound a bit dumb saying this, but why did they not mount a cleaning tool to one of the arms to wipe the solar panels? MadMaxDog 10:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there.  I thought the exact same thing.  I mean how hard would it be to have a small little motor with something the equivalent of a windshield wiper???  NOT HARD AT ALL.  I think the main thing is stowing that arm and making sure it doesn't get in the way of other devices (as well as jamming say above the solar panels and casting a shadow).  Undoubtedly with NASA, adding such an arm would add another two million to the budget.  But anyways, despite this, the parts eventually fail and a clean solar panel won't move broken wheels.  Additionally, with dust in the atmosphere creating high opacity, clean solar panels are essential, but will not help after a certain point... dust gets too thick and not enough sunlight comes through to generate enough power even on virtually perfectly clean solar panels... thus, the rover is not able to keep its electronics warm.  Still, they SHOULD HAVE HAD A CLEANING TOOL OF SOME SORT.  It extends life at least some (probably lots).  I think NASA just needs an average person like you/me to suggest some blatantly obvious things.  I mean are we missing something??  Not sure why we can't have cleaning tools for the panels. --Marsbound2024 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a reasonable suggestion if you're planning on running a multi-year mission (I thought of it too), but when you're only planning on the rovers just barely squeaking past 90 days because of failures in other systems, the weight and complexity of having an extra motor isn't justified.Bongle 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, there was a limit to how large and/or heavy the rovers could be; so if they had chosen to add a device for cleaning off the solar panels, it would have been at the cost of one or more of the rovers' scientific devices. Vsst 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning of solar panels

message: There's nothing telling me what this mission has actually accomplished.   What's been discovered? 196.40.10.250 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's been accomplished? 

message: I discovered some direct copy-paste action going on in this article. The original source is http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_edl_parachute.html The entire article is reproduced nearly 100% starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover#Parachute I compared the too texts using this: http://www.comparesuite.com/online.htm and they were found to be 63% similar. I will look into the extent of the plagiarism and look to find the user responsible. An article rewrite will likely be necessary if the plagiarism is significantly large. Any help is appreciated. wingman358 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While rewriting in standard wiki-style is probably a good idea.  It should be noted that there is no copyright violation here.  Products of the US federal government are in the public domain (with few exceptions) and thus available for reuse without limitation.  There is not even a legal requirement that credit be given, though of course, we have a scholarly obligation to indicate or sources.  ~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. I failed to realize that. If you didn't cite it, I will after I post this. 24.218.27.2 07:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I wasn't signed in. The preceding post is me. wingman358 07:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Recently several newspapers have written about a strange shape on the left side of one of the pictures taken by the Mars Exploration Rover, see for instance, 
How are the scientist interpreting the formation? Are their other pictures from the vehicle from different angles? Could one settle the issue by comparing the path of the vehicle? 
--RickardV (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the mysterious rockformation 

message: I think that it is important to cite that the rovers are spending their fifth year on Mars. There will be documentaries of this on National Geographic called "Five Years on Mars: The Rovers", which I feel should also be written about.Cakechild (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have self-created traverse maps for Spirit in Gusev Crater that gives better perspective than NASA images.  I essentially overlayed the up-close higher resolution image pictures on lower-res, wider area ones.  Thus you can get a good idea of traverse in Gusev crater.  I've also worked on one for Opportunity as well if anyone is interested.--Marsbound2024 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Years on Mars 

message: Does anyone have any information as to why NASA chose to use a solar panel for power instead of an RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)?  I know they're planning to use an RTG on the newer, bigger rover, the MSL (Mars Science Laboratory).  They did use RHUs (radioisotope heater units) on the MER; the only thing I can think of is weight and cost savings associated with a mission that has a shorter planned duration - 90 days vs 2 years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.205.80 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RTGs aren't readily available and are quite a good deal more expensive than solar panels.  NASA was also wanting to send two units instead of one so having TWO RTGs was almost certainly out of the question.--Marsbound2024 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  NASA has dwindling PU-239 stocks left and it would be a terrible waste to use lots on rovers designed for a 90-day mission on Mars. It is possible the choice of RTG for MSL might have been changed if we'd realised how long the solar panels would work on MER. - Rod57 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MER's solar panels vs. MSL's RTGs 

message: A simple bulleted list of interesting facts would be a nice addition to the article, such as: 
Distance traveled so far by each rover; speed of each rover (high and low, depending on terrain); number of geological features visited, photographed or tested (rocks, craters, other formations); coldest temperature endured; highest temperature endured; map locating rovers on Mars surface; potential physical life span of each rover; etc...). 
Sean7phil (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Needs a FAQ-like Section

message: :File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg

message: These rovers have been so successful, with only minor glitches, why has no consideration never been given to re-using (the proven) design and launching more rovers, with maybe a change in the scientific experiments carried on board ? The cost savings in re-using the design, rather than starting from scratch (again! which seems to be the way these things are done) would be highly advantageous. The vehicles are fairly light and cheap, the landing method is proven, the wheel design is proven (with maybe some improvement to the bearings to stop seizing), the vehicles have lasted an extremely long time, so it seems strange to abandon what has been learnt to try an unproven new rover. Heck, why not just sell the design to any third party for use for scientific exploration (presuming they can get the rovers to Mars somehow) ? The Yeti (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered that too, but I guess NASA (JPL) has engineers to keep employed. - Rod57 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no more rovers ?

message: The Power and electronics section says "The MSL will generate 2.5 kilowatt hours per day compared to the Mars Exploration Rovers which can generate about 0.6 kilowatt hours per day.[30]" but the source doesn't seem clear if 'day' actually means sol which would match other reports of the MERs generating up to 600kWhr/sol. Rod57 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 600 Wh/sol is about 0.6 kWh/day, since a sol is only slightly larger than an Earthly day.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  days or sols 

message: It would be nice if the history section began with the dates (or even general months) of when each rover was launched and landed on Mars. At this point, you have to go to each individual rover's page to learn that info.
IChooseLife24 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section, beginning 

message: I found the same quotation from the 9-year-old girl appears on an official NASA page so have substituted that in place of the obviously controversial Facebook page. My hope is this will end what appears to be an edit war between an IP user and a bot. — Glenn L (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mars Exploration Rover#Naming_of_Spirit_and_Opportunity|Naming of Spirit and Opportunity]] 

message: There is a new rover that is being sent to mars as of 2011.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.200.29 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  add new mars rover 

message: *Inline refs - lots of paras without inline refs, including the whole first half and a bit of the "History" section and a vast amount of the "Design" section.
*Check content
*Check structure - in particular check MoS, and the "see also" and "glossary" parts (boldface, size etc.).
*Reassess
Chaosdruid (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Robotics attention needed

message: This article fails the basics:
When proposed? By whom?
When approved?  Legislative history
Directors?  (Program Managers?)
Designed WHERE?
Manufactured WHERE?  sub components, ... Assembled WHERE? Propulsion? Instruments? Rover?
Launched WHERE?
Paths/ Trajectories?
Costs?
Major findings?
very disappointing71.31.146.16 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am disappointed that the history section begins at launch. 75.161.179.72 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is grossly incomplete in the omission of the public history prior to launch. There's a good chance (although without any information, I can only speculate) that various people, departments, even organizations (NASA, Congress, Main Contractors) went back and forth for a while with this as well as probably countless other ideas until something arose from the mud (so to speak). How much it mutated on it's way to final[sic] budget approval and became incorporated into NASA's budget can't be easily known. It's imagination, it's science, it's engineering, it's economics, it's politics. BUT. There are certainly land-marks (dates, reports, committees established/departments tasked, as well as lines on the budget that can be used to trace the timeline prior to launch.40.142.191.32 (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

text:  An important note: Steve Squyres Principle Investigator for MER wrote a book that based on its Table of Contents has a personal account of the background history (written in 2005). "Roving Mars: Spirit, Opportunity, and the Exploration of the Red Planet"40.142.191.32 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not even the facts. Need history before launch 

message: Article covers the vehicle design, but not details (eg entry angle,... speeds, timings) of the nominal EDL sequence they are designed for ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the popular encyclopedia need this information? Ruslik_Zero 08:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it does, or at least clear links to where more details can be found. - Rod57 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are details of the entry descent and landing 

message: https://web.archive.org/web/20090413215211/http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/projects/projectImage.cfm?Project=1&Image=64
This is obviously a worthwhile addition to one of the articles.
THE CAPACHA IS 1avadiked YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP 2601:802:8301:54B0:9589:5E44:E9F4:55FE (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which rover drew this