This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philae (spacecraft) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days ![]() |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 12, 2017, November 12, 2020, November 12, 2022, and November 12, 2023. |
![]() | A news item involving Philae (spacecraft) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 November 2014. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Philae (spacecraft) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2015. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is there some reason the image on this page can't be used based on this copyright notice? Sundayclose (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between "landing" and "crashing" and why is this considered a "landing"? Ron Schnell 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Since ESA is a collaboration of individual countries, aren't the contributions by its member countries.Instead of saying International contributions, wouldn't an apt title be Contributions by member countries. Daiyusha (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I recently found Agilkia as it was tagged for being orphaned. I discovered an IP edited it from a redirect and it was never really taken care of. I believe it should be "merged" into here and turned into a disambiguation page or redirect.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It was NOT intended to bounce. It "bounced" twice, and probably hit something in between bounces! It finally came to rest 28 minutes after it first touched down and was perhaps (why isn't this mentioned? they finally DID locate it (2 yrs later)) half a km from the target site. Note that they did not know where it was (i.e. it was lost). The harpoons didn't deploy. The thruster didn't fire. The lander was supposed to come down in enough sunlight to keep the battery charged and it ended up with about 1.5 hrs of sunlight of a possible 12.4 hr. It was supposed to come down vertically oriented and it did not. All told, the failures seem to out number the successes. My suggestion is to include this sentence in the lead: "The lander came to rest on the comet's surface, but it wasn't a successful landing." "sub-optimal" or "non-optimal" are euphemisms for a bad landing. It would also be useful -in the lead- to mention which instruments actually got the amount of data expected (I'd guess 0/10) and how much data was received over-all compared to how much was planned. 98.17.180.195 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)