Talk:Stardust (spacecraft)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: Mid |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Contents |
[edit] External Links
Please date and name the articles or references.
[edit] Stardust Microchips
I was going to add it to here, but I'm going to create a separate page "List of Stardust Microchip Names", listing the names that were attached to the Stardust spacecraft (see http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/microchip/faq.html ). Nick04 18:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- So what happened? Why aren't the microchips and the fact that they contained people's names mentioned in the article? (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/microchip/names2k14.html) Kalambaki2 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs expanding
The German article has a lot of extra information on the spacecraft and its mission that could be brought in here. -Wikibob | Talk 2005 July 2 08:02 (UTC)
[edit] Fate of spacecraft after mission?
According to our article, "... the rest of the spacecraft is destroyed in the atmosphere." but according to NASA, "the STARDUST spacecraft ... will continue to orbit the Sun after the mission." [1] Are these two quotes talking about different parts of the spacecraft? If not, our article is probably wrong. -SCEhardt 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Andromeda Strain, anyone?
What precautions are being taken to avoid cross-contamination between the sample and Earth's atmosphere? Did the sample container maintain an airtight seal during its crash-landing? Or has NASA lost its legendary over-cautiousness? -Kasreyn 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Though my opinion means nothing, I was under the impression that it would be sufficiently protected within the aerogel. It IS a solid though relatively un-dense and I wouldn't think there would be any contamination deep within the structure. freshgavin TALK 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- See here for photos of the NASA clean room facilities in Utah and Houston. It looks like most (possibly all) of the pictures currently posted were taken prior to the mission. Johntex\talk 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] landing time
I removed a reference to EST, leaving only the UTC date and time of the event. Mainly because it is more "neutral", but also because quoting the local time on the east coast of North America for an event that occurred near the west coast looks strange... mdf 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] interplanetary??
Why does it specify this is interplanetary (first line) if it's not visiting any planets?
- I don't think this is a good criterum for "interplanetary". Either a spacecraft goes around the Earth and/or Moon, or it ventures out to other bodies of the solar system. The first type would not be interplanetary, the second would be. Even if the visited body is not classified as "planet", it still travels that "interplanetary space". Just my 2 cents. Awolf002 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say "orbital" would work fine for satellites which remain within the immediate environs of a single body, "interplanetary" for anything that travels beyond the Earth's immediate orbit but not outside the solar system, and "interstellar" for the Voyagers and other probes that leave the system. Kasreyn 10:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Updates
Stardust (spacecraft)#Aerogel sample collectors To analyse the aerogel for interstellar dust, about one million photographs will be taken
Stardust@home Update : Scanning, Testing, and Calibration Movies
According to the original plan, 1.6 million "movies" would have been needed to scan the entire surface of the aerogel collector. In practice, however, the CCD camera taking the pictures of the aerogel at the Stardust@home lab at JSC is larger than the one initially planned for the job and takes pictures of larger aerogel segments. This means that it now takes about 5,500 movies to cover each aerogel tile, and the total number of movies needed to cover the entire collector is just over 700,000.
I'd Make The edit myself but it's not a simple as changing "one million photographs" to "just over 700,000 focus movies"
focusmovie Focus Movie A stack of images taken from a single field of view of the automated microscope at several different focus depths. Each image can be thought of as a frame in a movie; running the movie forward and simulates looking throgh a microsope and turning the focus knob.
[2] And there are 40 pictures in each Focus in the tutorial
So does that make a little over 2,800,000 pictures but the estimate was lowered not raised? And then are you going to count the numerous mess-ups in making the Focus movies in the final number?
also
The article says
The collector tray contains ninety blocks of aerogel in a metal grid
The site says
Eight out of the 130 aerogel tiles have already been scanned
and What about those 2 titular pockets I042 and I075 aren’t there 132 tiles? They are numbered.
I already made the changes to Stardust@home [3] but can somebody double check me.--E-Bod 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The Simple solution is 130 is the Official count and 132 is WP:OR so we go with the 130 count.--E-Bod 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
