Talk:Tianwen-1

The Chinese spacecraft consists of a lander, besides the orbiter and rover, right?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

I kept reading articles that reference a lander. See this for example: "The Mars lander underwent a hovering-and-obstacle avoidance test at a sprawling site in Huailai, northwest of Beijing". https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-china-mars/china-completes-crucial-landing-test-for-first-mars-mission-in-2020-idUSKBN1XO0IQ 98.207.237.179 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Correct, lander cited in the article.Albertaont (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing citations for the Tianwen-1 being currently en-route to Mars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

The opening paragraph of the article currently (August 1, 2020) reads:

  Tianwen-1 (TW-1) (tentatively Huoxing-1, HX-1 during development[9]) is an interplanetary mission to Mars by the    China National Space Administration (CNSA) to send a robotic spacecraft, which consists of an orbiter, a lander and a rover.[10] The mission was successfully launched from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site on 23 July 2020[11][12][13] with a Long March 5 heavy-lift rocket, and is currently en route to Mars.[14][15][16] Its stated objectives are to search for evidence of both current and past life, and to assess the planet's environment.[4][17]

The citations for it being currently en route to its destination are 14, 15, and 16.

But these footnotes all refer to material published several months ago (late February, 2020).

Therefore they cannot possibly support the statement that it is currently en route.

I have no doubt that it actually is currently en route, because i'm sure the MSM would be trumpeting any failure of the craft had one occurred.

But if there are citations provided, they should support the part of the sentence they are attached to.

75.25.136.199 (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Updated references.Albertaont (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page protection

Some page protection may be in order. nagualdesign 12:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Third country for soft landing

The lede states that “China will be the third country to achieve a soft landing on Mars after Russia and the United States”. However, Russia has never achieved a soft landing on Mars. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was the first country to achieve a soft landing on Mars with Mars 3. The article text has been corrected (Russia → Soviet Union). nagualdesign 23:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fourth, as Beagle 2 landed softly, the incorrect deployment of its solar panels then doomed it to silence.

CrackDragon (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• As Beagle_2#Discovery_of_Beagle_2_spacecraft_on_Mars shows, evidence regarding Beagle 2's fate point towards a soft landing, but there is nothing to date that is conclusive, as several interpretations of the images are possible. We can reasonably conclude that it soft landed, but there is no confirmation that it did so. It isn't Wikipedia's place to speculate. We summarize available citations as a tertiary source should. It is appropriate to discuss its fate on the Beagle 2 article. It isn't appropriate to extrapolate to this article that Beagle 2 successfully made a soft landing, as there is no conclusive proof that it did so. Yes, Beagle 2 was found. But, we still do not have conclusive evidence that it made a soft landing. Find a reliable source that draws the conclusion that three nations have successfully soft landed on Mars, then fine. Otherwise, the UK's soft landing of Beagle 2 is uncited speculation and needs to be removed. With Mars 3, we have proof it made it to the surface in one piece as it did broadcast for a short period. With Beagle 2 we do not have that. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • But Beagle 2 deployed at least 2 of its solar panels, that is obvious from the pictures. A hard landing would have precluded even partial activation of any of the spacecraft's systems. You don't have to extrapolate, interpolate or pontificate that this is a sure-fire indication of a soft landing. Therefore the statement 'fourth country to achieve a soft landing on Mars' is axiomatic. CrackDragon (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Find a reliable source that agrees with the conclusions you've drawn, then fine. Otherwise, it doesn't belong. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @CrackDragon: Any additional comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Since it only opened 3 of the 4 solar panels, thus obstructing comms, no-one can say for sure that this wasn't caused by a hard(ish) landing. Even though hard would have almost precluded any mechanical opps, I can't find a link that says it landed soft for sure CrackDragon (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Neither can I. That's my concern. I'm happy to agree it was a soft landing if a reference can be found to support it, but we don't have that. It's a bit like George Mallory's attempt to climb Mount Everest. We can speculate he made it, but there's no hard evidence. Similarly here, there's just no unequivocal evidence it soft landed. Maybe some day we'll have more data, but right now we don't. I think we're in agreement? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Under duress, so long as you don't expect me to find a link that proves that we agree!?!? CrackDragon (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
            • Well, I don't think I can find a secondary source that says we agree either :) It's already back to third, as someone else changed it back to third. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
              • Given the ambiguity around whether the Beagle 2 made a soft landing, I think that it's worth tweaking the language in this article to add "and transmit data back to Earth" or a similar phrase to the sentence. That much reliable sources agree on. JECE (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@CrackDragon, Hammersoft, and JECE: Since CrackDragon can't provide sources, I will. A research paper published by the Royal Society found that HiRISE imagery of Beagle 2 was "consistent with deployment of the lander lid and then some or all solar panels". The University of Leicester, co-leaders of the Beagle 2 mission, noted in a press release that "this mission was only one, or possibly two solar panels away from being an outstanding success." Numerous reliable third-party sources (WP:RS) echo these claims of a soft landing and/or partial deployment, such as BBC News, ITV News, The Guardian, Space.com, SpaceNews, and Spaceflight Now. — Molly Brown (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of: [1] --JECE (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The rover's name?

Has the CNSA revealed the name of their rover, yet? The articles doesn't really mention much about it, besides instruments on board. -- sion8 ^{talk page} 08:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the name of the rover is "Zhurong", after the Chinese mythological god of fire. Here is the citation: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57122914. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Lander

This article is missing any details on the lander. Its configuration, how Zhurong is mounted on it, etc -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Should "Tianwen-1" be italicized?

Name of ships and spacecraft are often italicized. "Tianwen-1" was italicized in the article yesterday but not today. It's getting confusing. --PFHLai (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the names of ship and spacecraft are always italicised. MeegsC (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ITALIC in fact states:

The vessels convention does not apply to smaller conveyances such as cars, trucks, and buses, or to mission names. Also, most real-world spacecraft and rockets at this time are not given proper names, thus Apollo 11, Saturn V, Falcon 9, etc. are not appropriate.

So I think that it's correct as is. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

For spacecraft, the usual convention (also used in Wikipedia articles) is that the spacecraft's name is italicized if it is a proper noun, which Tianwen is. If the official name is an abbreviation or acronym, such as the NASA InSight Mars lander, then the name is not italicized. Fcrary (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The Unsinkable Molly Brown made the change here with edit summary "... Ultimately, "Tianwen-1" is a mission name, the orbiter and lander are nameless and eponymous referred to with adjectives ..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@PFHLai, MeegsC, and Fcrary: There's a misunderstanding that "Tianwen-1" is the name of the spacecraft themselves. It's not. "Tianwen-1" is a mission name, not a vessel name. As noted by Ravenpuff above, mission names are explicitly stated in MOS:ITALIC as one of the things not to be italicized. — Molly Brown (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. What's the name of the orbiter? I've only seen Tianwen-1 and Zhurong (lander/rover) used. Fcrary (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Spacecraft dimensions in infobox?

In the infobox, the Zhurong lander is described as having dimensions of 2.6 × 3 × 1.85 m. That doesn't sound right. Since the specified mass is 240 kg, that would imply a density of only 16.6 kilos per cubic meter (under two percent that of water.) That's shockingly low for a spacecraft. Also those dimensions would make it larger than the Perseverance or Curiosity landers, while other sources compare the size of Zhurong to the much smaller Spirit and Opportunity landers. I strongly suspect that the 2.6 x 3 x 1.85 m dimensions describe the Tianwen-1 orbiter, not the Zhurong lander. Can someone confirm that and should we correct the article? Fcrary (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Independent confirmation of successful landing with surface photos

While the CPC and chinese state media have hailed the landing a success, has there been independent confirmation that this really is the case? We have not seen surface pictures yet - only this can prove a successful landing. I suggest inserting that no independent confirmation neither surface photographs have surfaced to date if no independent sources for both have been found 2003:EA:7F1F:A911:19C8:D5DC:FE23:F5AA (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)