Talk:InSight

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agmarusiak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Launch postponed

Hold on your horses calling it "cancelled". It may be postponed if the leak is not fixed by 5 January: [1] CNES President Le Gall: "We're not giving up resolving NASA Mars InSight lander instrument leak; we have till 5 January to nail it down."

NASA news conference tonight. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

NASA officials stated that it may take "months" to figure the fate of the mission (postponed vs. cancelled). It is still in flux so lets state that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The name is a backronym for Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport.

If it really is a backronym then the name 'InSight' came first and 'Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport' came from 'InSight', not the other way around. That's literally what a backronym is. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Names

Something on the fact that nasa is sending over a millon peoples names to mars on this craft. See nasa.gov. Phoenix53004 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually it already is... oops Phoenix53004 (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Phoenix53004 (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Launch site

@Huntster: @Mostmadmonkey: @Drbogdan: Because of the current edit war regarding the launch site, I looked at the most recent info from the InSight home page. It has 2 separate web pages quoting contradictory info:

• https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/mission/launch-vehicle/ quotes Cape Canaveral at the top and Vandenberg in the text.
• https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/mission/timeline/ quotes Vandenberg

I contacted the Mars Program and pointed out the contradiction. I don't expect a quick answer. Given that both pages/sources are from the same "reliable" entity, it is evident we can't quote one site over the other. For the sake of accuracy and civility, I request input for the best way to proceed. Should we quote both? Go back to the original (Vandenberg) since no announcement of launch site change was made? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Huntster:@Mostmadmonkey: @Drbogdan: My thoughts are that it is at Vandenberg as if you scroll down on the webpage that cites it as launching from the Cape, it states that the rocket will launch from Vandenberg. Spaceflightnow also states that it will launch at Vandenberg. I forget which but another article in the references for the Insight page state that the payload was moved to the west coast facility at Vandenberg to prep for launch.

• https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Mostmadmonkey (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

An article that self-contradicts is by definition not a reliable source, regardless of the author. This is an aspect of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The part saying Canaveral is clearly just a mistake, actual prose is far more reliable.

The correct launch site is Vandenberg as is mentioned in a number of post-launch delay articles, e.g.:

• a) [2] "InSight is scheduled to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in May of 2018." (article dated Oct. 3, 2017)
• b) [3] "Preparation of NASA's next spacecraft to Mars, InSight, has ramped up this summer, on course for launch next May from Vandenberg Air Force Base in central California -- the first interplanetary launch in history from America's West Coast." (article dated Aug. 28, 2017)

All the reliable sources available say Vandenberg, so that is what the article should read. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose removal of italics for "InSight"

No sources seem to put "InSight" in italics:

• NASA: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/insight/landing/download/mars_insight_landing_presskit.pdf
• NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/science/nasa-insight-mars-landing.html
• White House: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/11/fact-sheet-us-france-cooperation-science-and-technology

I believe it should be more accurately styled like the International Space Station, as a platform, not a ship with the name in italics. Thoughts? PvOberstein (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mission patch is NOT in italics either. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/web/badge/insight.png Jcflnj (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a convention in Wikipedia to italise the names of spacecraft. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It was a spacecraft, now it's a stand alone nonmoving laboratory lander, just like Viking 1, which is italicized. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I just pulled a couple of italic InSights before I checked this. I think the convention, within NASA and in general, is to italicize a spacecraft's name if it is a proper noun, but not to italicize it if the name is an acronym. I think that means names like Insight and MAVEN should not be in italics, while Curiosity, Juno, New Horizons, etc. should be. In this case, we have a mix of both throughout the article, and that should be fixed (one way or another.) Fcrary (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Touchdown confirmed!

at about 14:53 Eastern Standard Time! 2604:2000:F620:4A00:C1CB:7316:2B8A:6E5A (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know what the communication delay between Earth and Mars was? SpyMaster356 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Delay is 8 minutes. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In the News

I have nominated the landing to be listed at "In the News": Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#InSight lands on Mars --DannyS712 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of images

I think we need to standardise how images are used here. We currently have:

• A gallery section with one image
• A Mars map section with one image
• 2 images, centered on the page, with no text surrounding them
• Almost 2 dozen other images in boxes on the left and right sides of the page

I know its currently undergoing a lot of edits as a result of its landing, but this should be fixed. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of images, the interactive map at the bottom of the gallery seems to have some major clipping issues with the tabs situated below it on mobile devices. No idea how to even approach fixing that so thought I’d let someone know here. Ndunc1 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Upgrade to b-class article

With recent attention and developments in the page, I'm confident it could be upgraded to B-class, or nearly b-class (with one or two criteria unchecked), for the spaceflight and solar system wikiprojects. Unfortunately, I don't have the skill or knowledge to properly assess the article and make these changes in the infobox above. Nickrulercreator (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating the infobox is easy, you change class=C to class=B. I'm not familiar with the rating system here, so I'll leave the evaluation to others. --mfb (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nickrulercreator: I agree that this a b-class worthy, and have assessed it accordingly.  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Launch time

I don't find the exact time in any references given n the article. Can any body help where it is, or add the proper reference. Thanx. JSoos (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)  Done JSoos (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Mars lander/rover power comparison chart?

Power comparison chart

Original version

Possible corrected version

It looks like the power comparison chart in this article contains some errors. JPL removed the tweet which sent the chart out, when people pointed out some of the mistakes (e.g. that Viking was not solar powered, or that the comparison between Phoenix and Curiosity is inconsistent.) Should we leave this figure in the article, and only update it if and when JPL publishes a corrected version? Or yank it pending a corrected version? None of the noted errors actually involve InSight, just the other Mars missions used in the comparison. Fcrary (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fcrary: and interested others - Thank you for your comments - one possiblility (see images above) => correct the questionable image information ourselves - based on corrections that are supported by WP:Reliable sources - questionable information without available corrections - could be noted with a question mark - or - removed from the image - until better information is found - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done - BRIEF Follwup - updated the image on the main article to the possible corrected image - at least seems better than the original image - please comment if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fcrary and Phoenix7777:: and interested others - FWIW - on closer look, there may be another issue (misunderstanding?) with the newly "corrected" table image - the table may not be concerned only with solar energy - but with energy from any power supply - including solar energy (ie, InSight Lander, Phoenix Lander, Pathfinder Lander, Pathfinder Rover, Spirit Rover, Opportunity Rover) - and also - radioisotope power (ie, Viking Landers and Curiosity Rover) - Hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I was going to wait for someone at JPL to fix their own diagram (they might as well earn their salary...) But the your version looks fine, except for Viking. I think the intent was to show all (successful) Mars landers or rovers, so Viking should be there. Also the Viking Landers were definitely RTG powered. The Viking Orbiters were solar powered. The Wikipedia article on Viking might be as clear as it could be. My problem is I can't find consistent numbers on the power output. Is it 30 W each from two RTGs, or 30 W total from two RTGs? Fcrary (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fcrary: - Thank you for your clarification about the Viking Landers - they were RTG powered after all (the Viking Orbiters, not Landers, were solar powered) (adjusted/updated my earlier wl/comments above) - re the 30w each or combined question - my present read of the uncited Viking article text => seems it may be 60w total (two 30w RTG units on each side of one Viking Lander) - otoh => "each (Viking) lander was powered by two SNAP-19 RTGs, delivering a total of approximately 85 watts of electrical power" - another possibly relevant reference is here => https://rps.nasa.gov/power-and-thermal-systems/legacy-power-systems/ - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and question - and - Enjoy! :) 22:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Landing accuracy

I think it would be useful to include the distance from the center of the landing ellipse, If anybody has seen it quoted. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I haven't seen anything about this. A JPL press release did say they were not as close to the center as they would have liked (in the context of still being in a rock-free hollow being good luck.) The same press release said it might be a week or so before they had the exact location pinned down. As soon as they announce it, we should certainly add this. Fcrary (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No luck yet. I'll keep my eyes open. I understand that the location (ellipse) is generally benign, so accuracy was not critical, but still they have to measure its performance. The 2020 Rover will have enhanced systems for better accuracy than Curiosity. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk)

$10m/month storage locker unexplained

On 9 March 2016, NASA officials announced that InSight would be delayed until the 2018 launch window at an estimated cost of US$150 million.

Personally, that's not a figure I can comprehend unexplained. — MaxEnt 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Storage was only part of that cost, and probably a small part of it. The seismometer was supposed to be in a pretty hard vacuum, and the seals were not up to the job. They ended up rebuilding a significant part of the instrument (which is expensive.) Also, staffing normally ramps down shortly after launch, but not earlier. You need the people who built the hardware around until the spacecraft is launched and put through post-launch tests, and that means a 26 month delay means 26 months of salaries. Unfortunately, I don't think NASA has released the breakdown between those costs, so we probably don't have a reference we can use for a good explanation. Fcrary (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary is correct in all counts. It is not simply storage fees, but the duplicated air transport, extended salaries, and redesign of the SEIS instrument. I am sure there are many more items in the list. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass does not mean weight. Things on other planets have different weight but the same mass

This line bothers me:

Mars weight (0.376 of Earth's):[56] 134.608 kg (296.76 lb)

Kilogram is a measure of mass not weight. A 10kg object is 10kg on earth, on the moon or floating in space. It's weight varies wildly with where you put it. Pound is a bit of a mess. In a science context, we usually mean mass (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)), but most lay people use it in sense of a weight (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)). If you wanted to be "details oriented", I think the line should be:

Mars weight (0.376 of Earth's):[56] 1320 newtons (296 lb)

(There are only 3 significant digits here and I invited a 4th for newtons, but it's easier to read than 1.32 x 10^3 newtons). If you wanted to just make the numbers correct, the line should read:

Mars weight (0.376 of Earth's):[56] 296 lb (358 kg of mass)

But you have the disodence of saying weight and a unit of mass in the same line. JohnHarvey (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it. --mfb (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we clarify what inherited/copied from Phoenix, and what is new to InSight

Can we clarify what was inherited/copied from Phoenix, and what is new to InSight ? The team say the arm was inherited from a previous mission - presumably Phoenix - Phoenix had a scoop and rasp on the arm, InSight has scoop and grapple on its arm - more detail on the inSight arm, scoop & grapple would be great. Where is the cable spool for the grapple - by the scoop/wrist, elbow, or shoulder of arm ? Was the scoop planned to be used by InSight - or just accidentally inherited from Phoenix ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Same bus, engines, solar arrays and EDL system. Different science payload. I ignore if the robotic arm is the same one, I assume it is very different. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Heritage discussions always make my head hurt. For example, yes, the solar arrays are Northrup Grumman UltraFlex, and almost the same size (2.1 and 2.15 meter.) But the NG Fact sheet lists a different cell technology and a 24% versus 29.5% efficiency. That's definitely heritage, but I wouldn't call it copied. There is a big grey area between using an earlier design as a starting point (and then making a whole bunch of changes) and simply building to print. I've never had much luck working out exactly where in that range any given piece of hardware falls. Fcrary (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Heat flux in "Science Background" and "Objectives" sections

Why isn't there any mention of geothermal heat flux in the "Science Background" or "Objectives" sections? That is a key aspect of the mission and the whole reason for having the HP3 instrument. I know it's having problems, but it was still supposed to be one of the two or three critical parts of the mission. Fcrary (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Energy Crisis

The phrasing "energy crisis" comes across as extreme, and dire. InSight met it's designed mission life before having energy issues. Is it really a "crisis" if you're beyond your designed mission lifetime and are now seeing the weakest links fail first? It does appear to be power/energy, but having exceed mission designed life, it shouldn't include such baited terms as "crisis". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.20.178 (talk • contribs) 7:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I altered the heading per your comment. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)