Talk:List of Solar System probes

message: I see that missions still in concept are not to be listed, but is there a place to list proposals such at the TAU mission?  DougHill 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed probes 

message: What is the difference between partial success and partial failure (compare Genesis with Sakigake Halley flyby)?  I ask because partial success is shaded grey but partial failure is left unshaded.  I'd suggest that we don't have partial failures only failures, since anything that didn't fail can be viewed as a partial success. ThreeBlindMice 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there shouldn't be any "partial failures". There should only be "success", "partial success" and "failure". "Success" and "partial success" should be shaded, and "failure" shouldn't. I've changed the remaining instances of "partial failure". Matt 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of this (I was quite willing to make the changes myself but wanted to know if there was some distinction I was missing prior to doing so). ThreeBlindMice 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial success vs. Partial failure 

message: I've been all the way through this list, and added a number of new entries, and as far as I can see it's pretty much complete. It's hard to say with absolute certainty that nothing is omitted, but I feel confident enough about it that it doesn't need the warning. However, if anyone still has concerns please put it back. I decided not to add some really quite speculative proposals still at concept stage, and put a note to that effect at the start of the list. Matt 02:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "incomplete list" warning 

message: :Image:VSE 2013.jpg is listed on proposed deletions. John Vandenberg 13:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image deletion

message: This list contained a scattering of "cancelled" missions.  In fact, a large number of missions are proposed all the time, some quite notable (e.g. the Planetary Grand Tour); only a minority of these proposed missions ever make it to the launch pad.  No criteria are given for determining which of the very large number of proposed missions are to be included on this list.  As many of the missions marked as "cancelled" are recent, I surmise that they were placed on the list as "future missions" and then marked "cancelled" when the mission failed to materialize, instead of being removed from the list.  In light of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, it's doubtful that "future missions" should be included, at least before it is certain that they will be launched. I have, however, limited myself to removing the "cancelled" missions from the list, as they serve no purpose. RandomCritic 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancelled probes

message: The date column in this list has always annoyed me. In some cases it's kind of natural to assume it's the launch date, and I think one or two might have been incorrectly changed to launch date. Then there are launch failures which are supposedly meant to list the launch date but sometimes seem to show the planned rendezvous date (which never happened), and various other anomalies. I think it would be much less confusing to have two date columns: launch date, and then the date of rendezvous (or however we want to term it), which is currently the date that is (usually) listed at the moment. That could be just left blank if the thing blew up. The problem is that the table will get wider, and we might have problems making it fit well on a standard monitor. Perhaps we could get rid of the pictures, which I'm guessing are one reason why this page is so painfully slow to load. Anyway, the pictures are almost always on the main article page, which is just one click away, and they're too small to see here so you need to click on something anyway... Or, do we have to take up so much space spelling out the dates in full? Can we just write them in the format like "10-Dec-03"? Thoughts? Matt 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the french page has no picture, loading is better:  Groslard (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Wouldn't it be nice if there was a "current status" listed for each of the probes (e.g. crashed, lost, heliocentric orbit)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.179.186 (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate article that aims to do this: List of probes by operational status. Having multiple list articles "slicing and dicing" exactly the same data in different ways is far from ideal -- what we really need is one big table with lots of fields and then some kind of SQL-type syntax to retrieve the required data and sort and format it appropriately, but in Wikipedia there doesn't seem to be any way to do this. Matt 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: I notice that some cancelled missions have crept back in. I don't feel fanatically strongly about this, but last time we had this discussion (above), the two people who expressed an opinion thought they shouldn't be included. Perhaps it's worth reopening that debate. If we do decide that they are to remain, then I think we should at least try to come up with some criteria for inclusion. I mean, how far back are we going to go? There must be hundreds of cancelled missions if we go right back to the 1960s. Are we only including notable cancelled missions? Notable recent cancelled missions? Missions that got quite a long way before being cancelled? Something else? Matt 23:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled missions (again) 

message: Great work here!  Ought to become a featured list with a little more work on the introduction and standardized referencing. DurovaCharge! 07:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close to a featured list 

message: I think that the [Lunar Probes] section is rather large. I'll suggest that we split it in two sub sections for the sake of simplicity. We could call the sub sections, I don’t know, Cold War and Post Cold War - that is a natural transition. The present section is a bit unforeseeable in the editing window because you have to roll down hundred lines to edit today's Lunar probes. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Silence is Consent! Now I've done it. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar Probes section is very long. 

message: Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we include distances of closest approaches? 

message: Because the Lunar Probes section is such a large part of this list -- a third or more of its total length -- I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to move it to its own list (e.g. List of lunar probes) with a link left in the current place it holds.  Does anyone have strong feelings about this one way or another? RandomCritic (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Lunar Probes?

message: The only problem I have with the MSL description "investigation of past and present habitability, climate and geology" is that "habitability" to me sounds like it is concerned with human habitability. 86.176.213.103 (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "habitability" 

message: I note the good list of Asteroid probes in this article.  It appears to be limited currently to 
#"Missions or flybys completed successfully (or partially successfully)
#Failed or cancelled missions
#Missions en route or in progress (including mission extensions)
#Planned missions
But would appreciate help in finding the place in Wikipedia that early (but serious and funded) asteroid probe proposals should be covered in Wikipedia, perhaps without creating a separate article for each notable/funded study.  I've looked and not found a place for that information.
So that leads to a question:  is it considered in-scope for this "List of..." article to have such funded/proposed/mission-architecture-studies/etc. covered here, by adding a row to the table?  Or is there another/better Wikipedia article to address this?  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid probes and mission architectures 

message: After seeing the articles and notes about them in the section Earth flybys, I think Mangalyaan had also performed a similar operation for gravity assist. I am not sure about the details though. If someone would be kind enough to see the details and add them then I would b highly grateful. Regards. - Jayadevp13 06:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Mangalyaan 

message: On the list of Mercury probes it says Messenger was intentionally impacted at the end.  NASA spent every bit of fuel trying to keep it in orbit, the impact was unavoidable, not intended. Loren Pechtel (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messenger intentionally impacted? 

message: It's hard to distinguish cancelled and failed missions from planned missions with the current grey/white distinction. I think a pale red would make more sense and make the charts easier to read. If no one has any objections within a week or two, I'll plan on switching the colors. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change color for cancelled/failed probes to red 

message: Originally, Earth flybys and Lunar probes were included in this article. Then someone decided to hive these off to separate articles, List of Earth flybys and List of lunar probes. Then, back in February 2015, another editor made this extremely unhelpful edit which appears to have copied all the content from List of Earth flybys and List of lunar probes back into this article, while leaving the other two articles intact. No one seems to have spotted this, and two versions of this large chunk of content appear to have been separately maintained for getting on for two years. Now the problem is to unpick this total fuckup and merge the two separate versions of this content back into one. 86.185.218.185 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: keep the headings for Earth flybys and Lunar missions, but have the link to the full article be the only content under the heading, in case people expect that info to still be here.Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed what I have done. Personally I would not oppose bringing all the content back into this article, but possibly it was split off because the article was thought to be getting too large. 81.152.193.239 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  Whoever you are, thanks! This is a logical split, page looks much better and is easier to handle now. — JFG talk 13:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with duplicated content 

message: As defined at Space probe article:  "Space probe is a robotic spacecraft that does not orbit the Earth, but, instead, explores further into outer space."  The Tesla car has been removed from this list because it is not a robotic probe, it is not a spacecraft, and it has no scientific payload to probe nor explore anything. It is a dead weight without battery and it became junk just hours after the rocket test.  It is however, an artificial object in space, so it is already listed at List of artificial objects in heliocentric orbit. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all objects are probes 

message: First to orbit and first leaving Earth's gravitational well.  205.175.106.45 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Table with countries first

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion