Talk:Tianwen-1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tianwen-1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Tianwen-1 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:

Wikipedia

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current events

This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Astronomy: Solar System

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China Start‑class Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Updated references.Albertaont (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - @CrackDragon: Any additional comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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 transit 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [i]Tianwen[/i] 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)[reply]