Talk:International Cometary Explorer

ICE contacted October 2008

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001673/

I'll see if I can get back to this tonight. -Ravedave (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote up a super-quick update before I saw your comment here. Feel free to expand/rewrite. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical detail?

this article is strangely devoid of any technical details. Is that information secret or notr available due to classification? Wefa (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd subject

http://xkcd.com/1337/ Perhaps this belongs in a, in pop culture, section Mathiastck (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. That doesn't belong in the article. See WP:XKCD for Wikipedia's discussion of when mentioning xkcd may be appropriate, and xkcd #446 for a humorous example of why opening the door to these pop culture mentions is a bad idea. Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought, and checked the lore on good and bad IPC entries, reaching the same conclusion. However, I heartily approve of it being tucked away on the talk page as an Easter egg for the compulsive reader.Freeman (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this interpretation. The XKCD 1337 comic happened one month earlier than the actual crowfunding and the project authors themselves are known readers of Munroe's comic. I don't know if they were inspired by it and the project simply wouldn't have been without it or if Munroe simply knew of their plans and anticipated it with a comic, either case I'd say it's pretty much relevant and contributed to raising awareness for the crowfunding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alves Stargazer (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not shut down?

this article: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/03201000-iceisee-3-update-amateurs.html Indicates that it could not be shut down because the of the used (very large) dish lacked transmit capabilities at a frequency that matched any of the satellite receiving frequencies. I'm not sure which contact this reference is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.63.47 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different story - Robert Farquhar, the man who hijacked a spacecraft

There is a different story of the mission posted here that should probably be added to the article --134.61.100.25 (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked-out this story, and there are numerous pages describing this exploit, which include (including above NPR story):

To what extent the spacecraft was "hijacked" or, rather, "borrowed" by Farquhar with (or without) tacit approval by NASA is unclear. Certainly, some scientists were upset that their intended research was thwarted by this caper, but maybe NASA did approve this comet rendez-vous either formally or informally. If anyone can shed light on what actually happened prior to the change of mission, do please share here.

Enquire (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course NASA approved the change of this mission ([1]). No conspiracy here, keep walking, nothing macabre to see. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass incorrect?

Nasa's mission site: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Sort=Target&Target=SolarSys&MCode=ISEEICE&Display=ReadMore clearly indicates 479kg as spacecraft mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.7.114.2 (talk) 07:57, 2014 May 22 (UTC)

It's 390kg of spacecraft, plus initially 89kg of hydrazine fuel. Reyk _YO! 03:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOV

reboot team failed to recapture the craft. i have made small edits detailing the physical impossibility of their "plan B" for the craft. would someone be willing to consolidate and clarify the exact reasons and math showing the reboot team are arguably lying, at best misrepresenting the facts and physics involved with "plan B"?

in addition do we have anything other than twitter posts to use as reference to financial backers being displeased with the lack of transparency in the project?

66.87.115.199 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited assertions

Removed from article: "The assertation that the team will be able to continue to actively monitor the craft as it leaves the Earth, without the use of any large dish such as at the Arecibo Observatory, is dubious at best due to the inverse-square law affecting reception of signals from the craft. It is additionally categorically impossible to command the craft without availability of a suitable large aperture, high power, transmitting dish such as the Arecibo Observatory or the Deep Space Network. In addition, it is unlikely that NASA will extend further lease to command the craft after the failure to re-insert into the L1 halo orbit as this was one of the original contract terms." PRRfan (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

these are not uncited assertions, the page for the inver-square law is itself a spoken citation -0 this is immutable physical LAW. please review wiki policy before reverting edits in the future, and bring up a deletion request for consensus here on the talk page before making further changes. if need be i will request protection on the article to prevent fanboy-ing for the reboot project. TIA for abiding policy in good faith. 66.87.115.199 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are the currency of Wikipedia; uncited assertions are subject to removal. Kindly provide citations for your assertions. PRRfan (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on my administrator hat here, PRRfan is exactly right. These are extraordinary claims, anon, and thus require citations. You are additionally inserting conjecture/original research, which is not permitted. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the claims being made need to be cited to reliable sources before they can be included. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sourced paragraph addressing in part the doubts raised by the removed text. According to the source, the team is not claiming it can receive data and send commands throughout the ISEE-3's orbit, but rather that it will do as much as it can. And they have generated tremendous good will, so occasional support if needed from Arecibo, NASA or others can't be ruled out. We can update the article as things progress. --agr (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"user appears biased"?

Anon editor 66.87.114.183 reverted my edit, saying "WP:EW [Edit Warring] please discuss further edits via talk page, user appears biased." I confess this confuses me; as 1) this was my first edit to this particular text, and 2) I'm not sure what bias the anon detected in what was meant simply to be a minor copyedit. Here's the original ("On September 25th, contact with the probe was lost. Due to uncertainty in the exact exact orbit of the probe it is unknown if contact can be reestablished.") and here's my edited version ("On September 25, contact with the probe was lost. Its exact orbit is uncertain and it is unknown whether contact can be reestablished.") Anonymous editor, care to offer more explanation? PRRfan (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anon has declined to answer despite further edits, so I've readded my edit. PRRfan (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Cometary Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712202824/http://space.about.com/od/spacemissions/p/iseeiceinfo.htm to http://space.about.com/od/spacemissions/p/iseeiceinfo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]