Good articleMariner 1 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
July 1, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 18, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Mariner 1, the United States' first interplanetary probe, was lost in 1962 due to the miscoding of a single character in its software?
Current status: Good article

Mariner 2 was not a backup probe[edit]

According to Tracking and Data Acquisition Support for the Mariner Venus 7962 Mission, the second probe was to be launched even in the event of a failure of Mariner 1. I remove the sentence about the backup status.

BTW, I wrote in the french article that they were planned to launch in a 24-27 days interval and flyby Venus in a 3-14 days interval, but I can't find again this fact in the above reference were it was supposed to be. Duckysmokton blabla 12:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV marring section titled ""The most expensive hyphen in history""[edit]

I do not flatly deny the contents of the section in question. To be quite frank, it seems very thoughtfully and reasonably written by an at least moderately knowledgeable person. However -- if you read the section, you will see that it very much presents an interpretation of facts that are admittedly little known. It is very speculative without warning a less-knowledgeable reader that it is so. In essence, the whole section is written as an opinion on whatever caused the probe's destruction and its consequences -- and not as an exploration of said causes or as a revelation of the scarce evidence that there is. For example, I have read elsewhere that Arthur Clarke was the source for the quotation in the title. Maybe I am wrong, but the use of quotes indicates that someone spoke it first, and that source should be cited. I propose that someone intimate with the project's history does a toned-down rewrite of that section. SrAtoz (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo vs Mariner[edit]

The Apollo program has a space mission box, where the follow-up and preceeding missions can be easily seen. Is there a reason why such a box is not used for this unmanned mission? Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mariner 1[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mariner 1's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "LL":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 10:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariner 1 Post Flight Review Board report? hyphen in data-editing software?[edit]

One NASA source says that the Mariner 1 Post Flight Review Board determined that the omission of a hyphen in coded computer instructions in the data-editing program allowed transmission of incorrect guidance signals to the spacecraft. During the periods the airborne beacon was inoperative the omission of the hyphen in the data-editing program caused the computer to incorrectly accept the sweep frequency of the ground receiver as it sought the vehicle beacon signal and combined this data with the tracking data sent to the remaining guidance computation. This caused the computer to swing automatically into a series of unnecessary course corrections with erroneous steering commands which finally threw the spacecraft off course. This is a very different account from the others, and it omits lots of relevant details. I wonder if the referenced Mariner 1 Post Flight Review Board report is available online, when it was produced, etc. so we can check it more completely. I couldn't find it in a quick search. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interpretation by a modern writer, no one would *ever* have referred to the logic branch in question a "data-editing software" and that would have been beyond conception at the time. The issue was in a failure condition where the data uplinked failed the sanity checks, and the alternate (and temporary) configuration had a bug in it. It was not a hyphen but no one would have understood "overbar" which represents a filtered value. There's nothing too mysterious about this, the entire section in question is more of a semantics exercise than it is an engineering evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.34 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mariner 1/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mover of molehills (talk · contribs) 23:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will add soon!

Thanks very much! I hope you enjoy it. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills: just a quick ping for this review. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will start below. @Neopeius: Just letting you know that I've started leaving comments.

General feedback and nitpicks

Thank you. :)
Fixed.
Fixed.
expanded
  • And in the first sentence of this section, why is there the note "172" next to reference 1? If this is a page number, I think it should be listed in the references.
I am using RP format. As this is a source with multiple citations, this is the proper usage.
Got it, thanks for the clarification.
fixed
It is a typo, but the other way around; it shouldn't have commas. Fixed. :)
fixed
I am not certain I agree on this one. The last reviewer wanted it omitted, but I felt that left an open loop for the reader. But it's not directly relevant to the Mariner 1 narrative, so I feel parantheses is the most appropriate set-off.
I see – I take back my original suggestion. Still, now that I look at it, it seems like it actually might flow better out of the parentheses (even though it's not connected to Mariner 1, you're telling the stories of the two rockets that were used to test the spacecraft, so they should be given equal weight). Mover of molehills (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded, but I can't find that Venera 1 impacted Mariner's development. If you have a source, I'd love to see!
What you added looks pretty good. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how relevant it would be. We're only discussing a single booster (the Atlas) and two first stages, the Agena and the Centaur.
I don't know, it still might be interesting even if you just added "...which was originally created to launch the SM-65 Atlas ballistic missile." Mover of molehills (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: just a ping to follow up on this section, it's kind of buried right now. Mover of molehills (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Fixed.
It's just the inverse square law. :)
I see, okay. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an artistic rendering that I think predates the launch of either probe. For example.
Got it. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to omit the "a"
Bullet pointed the cases. It's a little tricky since bits were spread among them.
Fixed.
Expanded.
Because they open and close depending on the temperature.
Just saw this, thank you! Will address this week. --Neopeius (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tactful, constructive critique. Much appreciated. Fixes made (or discussed) and I'm ready when you are for the rest of your edits, as needed. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Here are a few more, and then I will be done with this section: Mover of molehills (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I try to take into account that a reader made jump to a section without viewing any others, particularly on a cell phone. I've clarified things.
I have no idea to what you are referring. The lead currently has two paragraphs, formatted per your earlier suggestions.
Fixed.
Prevent suggests a positive action. Preclude simply means that somethings keeps something from happening.
Even in the 1950s, there were lots of conjectured extraterrestrial life processes. They may yet be undiscovered unearthly life on Venus. :)
I don't, but I've changed it to "the Mariner spacecraft" -- the thing is, they were identical, so singling out Mariner 1 makes it seem like its mission was unique. Also, once this language passes GA, I plan to recycle it for Mariner 2, which could use the historical context.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fair enough.
Fixed.
Added "both" preceding to make it clear they were supposed to be close together timing-wise.
Passives removed (fixed Palomar, too)
Yay!
The problem is I don't think an in-depth description is appropriate here (especially in an article that has often been too technical). The target is reasonably useful and perhaps I'll upgrade it someday. :)
Fixed.
It's relevant but not well worded. Try it now.
Fixed.
I like empasizing out that the computer thought it was doing the right thing, causing exactly the wrong thing.
Added the dollar deflators. The thing is there wasn't much press at the time except for what was already discussed in the launch failure section. Perhaps renaming Legacy would help.

":fixed

fixed
I've been referring to JPL without the definite article throughout. I don't think "the" is warranted (any more than one would say the STL or the NASA)

Well written

Verifiable without OR

I understand your point. I've been making all of my articles consistent with the other format; it makes more sense, and it obviates the need for extra commas. :)
Fixed.
Fixed.
"As the Mariner spacecraft would spend most of its journey to Venus in interplanetary space, the mission also offered an opportunity for long-term measurement of the solar wind of charged particles and to map the variations in the Sun's magnetosphere. The concentration of cosmic dust beyond the vicinity of Earth could be explored as well.[3]:176"?
Never mind, sorry – I see it now. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Also, the sentence "the project proved too ambitious, and the launch window was missed" is not supported in this same document.
Fixed. Found the document that supports it. This is all stuff I rescued from the TRW museum, by the way. :)
Thanks again @Mover of molehills: -- I will get to this this week. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed most. Dinner time. Will address rest shortly. --Neopeius (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mover of molehills: All changes addressed, most implemented. Thank you for a truly thorough GA (that felt like an FA!) I'm sorry I left things in such a mess for you, and I'm glad you stuck with it, and didn't just abandon it as hopeless. --Neopeius (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I just have a couple more for this section, and then I'm guessing the last three will be pretty much automatic passes. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Claim for belief is on page 57 of the article (rotation equals revolution -- definition of tidally locked) but I see your point about later disproved. Thank you for finding a source. :)
I just got rid of the line. I was trying to say "These are all the things considered" to open the TV loop in the mind of the reader, but honestly, it's not necessary. So I just moved the citation to the Sagan quote.
Here you go. @Mover of molehills: --Neopeius (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get to it tomorrow. :) @Mover of molehills: --Neopeius (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the Experiments link. I generally just use the main NSSDC reference as the citation rather than linking the equivalent of tabs. --Neopeius (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything left @Mover of molehills:? :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the last batch! Mover of molehills (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better?
Better?
Thanks -- added appropriate pages from source.
Good catch.
Better?
Artifact from the older source. Fixed.
Added url and also [620722trib.jpg here]

Broad

Time article? Incorporated other article.
Better?

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated

I don't think that's appropriate for this article. That won't happen until Mariner 11, a thoroughly unrelated mission.


@Neopeius: And that's all! I can put this article on hold if you want, but it seems unnecessary since you've been so quick at getting back to changes. Let me know when you're done! Mover of molehills (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills: please don't put it on hold. I'll get to it this week. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mover of molehills: All issues addressed. How are we looking? --Neopeius (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Promoted. Thank you for bearing with me through this process – I think we've improved the article a lot since the beginning. If you ever nominator for FA (and I hope you do!) I would suggest trying to add a great range of sources and more secondary sources, but for now it passes the GA criteria very solidly. Mover of molehills (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I left a message on your Talk page regarding using some of this verbiage on the Mariner 2 page, since it's designed to be modular. What do you think? --Neopeius (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewed: I don't remember, but I should have an acceptable ratio. Please let me know if I don't!

Improved to Good Article status by Neopeius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Neopeius: The new enough GA has no textual issues and a very interesting, verifiable, in-article reference. But you have six DYKs, so it is time to supply a QPQ for this page. Also bolded the article in the hook for you. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I should have a few DYKs to my credit in addition to the 5 free ones... --Neopeius (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found my most recent: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kühkopf-Knoblochsaue @Sammi Brie: --Neopeius (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That QPQ will count; it hasn't been used for any other nomination, so we're good. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pasternack, Alex (26 July 2014). "Sometimes a Typo Means You Need to Blow Up Your Own Spacecraft". Vice. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
To T:DYK/P5