Talk:Mariner 1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contradictory info

There is contradicting information about the actual programming error between the introduction (superscript in equation) and "Detailed Description" section (comma). Please correct this if you know how. --Mihai 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation

Most of the content after the introduction section seems to be almost exactly the same as an article on NASA's website. Mariner 1 The text in the September 26, 2005 revision(s) by "Albanynewyork1" is, as far as I can tell, identical to the text in this article. There is no mention of fair use or permission to use the text and there is not even a link to or mention of the article, so I believe that this may be a violation of copyright. However, I am not certain enough of this to revert all of the changes, especially since there have been many edits to this article since the text was added. For now I'll just add a link to the article in the reference section, but hopefully someone will know of a more appropriate action to take here. -- Hihihi 22:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a copyright violation (but I don't know what to do about it). John 21:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't NASA works automatically public domain? The Wednesday Island 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the link above, so that people can compare more easily. Yes, it's identical except where we've edited. NASA does not claim copyright on this material, see "Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites". Still, just using this stuff verbatim seems weird. I'd say it makes sense to reorganize, reword, prune, expand wherever it makes sense in Wikipedia terms. Yakushima (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I added some information to the Mariner 2 article and noticed there is a lot of overlap with the Mariner 1 article. I suggest merging the two articles as both spacecraft are often used in one sentence in the articles I read on the Mariner-Venus 1962 missions. As Mariner 1 didnt reach space at all, there are no mission results to reflect on. Also, I guess it shouldn't be a problem as Mariner 6 and 7 are also described in one article.

Proposed structure of the new article:

1. Introduction
2. Detailed description
3. Mission and objectives
4. Spacecraft and subsystems (including instruments)
5. Mission profile (this is the current name in the Mariner 2 article, but there may be a better name)
6. Results (both on the engineering as well as the scientific objectives)

Let me know your thoughts. Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I 'support the proposed merger. Having an article that cites sources well (like Mariner 2) is vital. This Mariner 1 article, with no inline citations of sources, effectively looks like a stub. (sdsds - talk) 07:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merger. While Sdsds's point about lack of citations may be true, it seems to me that the event has historical significance that is distinct from Mariner 2 precisely because it was such a spectacular failure. It regularly comes up in such contexts -- consider Wired's article on historical failures, and Devtopic's article on famous software disasters for two examples. I'd like to see the article further expanded upon here instead of merged. Some ideas for additional topics that could help to flesh out this article are the impact (if any) that failure of the first Mariner mission caused the program, how the investigation discovered the mistake, and what public reaction there was to the failure (if any). Figs (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I also do not support the merger. I came to the article looking for information on the failure. (Indeed, it would have been nice if the article also mentioned the transcribed form of the erroneous variable, and not just the form in the original mathematical form.) Donal Fellows (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I also do not support the merger for the same reason as Donal Fellows. 157.89.4.58 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also do not support the merger proposal.

• Unnecessary overlap with Mariner 2 can be managed by moving shared details up to the Mariner Program article where appropriate. Also by application of Strunk & White: Omit Needless Words.
• Mariner 1 DID have "mission results to reflect on". It yielded telemetry data, and the failure led to a comprehensive review of the causes. For all we know, the review led to process improvements without which we wouldn't have had a significant Mariner program; i.e., the review itself might be deserving of attention as "mission results".
• Mariner 6 and 7 are in one article because they were launched simultaneously for the same mission. Admittedly, Mariner 2 was a backup for Mariner 1, but they've each ended up with their own place in the history books, for their own reasons.
• Answer to Sdsds: If an article looks like a stub because of a lack of inline citations, merging it with another might only hide that deficiency, while making it harder to remedy it. (I'd rather add inline citations to a shorter, more focused, article than to a longer, broader one.)
• Mariner 1's failure mode is significant in popular perception (e.g., A.C. Clarke's as-yet-unsourced "the most expensive hyphen in history" -- I'd love to find out if he actually said that, and where.)
• Mariner 1 is also significant in computer science folklore. Mariner 1's failure has been used for decades to bash Fortran for being prone to causing coders to introduce bugs, even though (as I think I discovered today for the first time) the guidance computer used for Mariner 1 didn't even HAVE a Fortran compiler. (Excuse my POV, but isn't this just a little hypocritical? And I say that as a guy who otherwise idolized the same computer scientists who helped propagate this story, and who can point to his own Fortran scars) Lesson here: there's just no substitute for checking one more time, is there?

I came to this article from fixing the one about Fortran; however, I follow space developments closely, and I have a more than passing interest in space history, so I probably would have come across Mariner 1 on Wikipedia eventually. Yakushima (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Mariner 1 article looks very well-sourced, but I just ran across a bug in its sourcing: the citation it gives to support the story of the Mariner 1 failure if for a report that actual predates the incident. (I simply moved the footnote to an earlier point, but this should be flagged for review.) If the incident is documented by JPL or NASA anywhere, it's probably in the Mariner-Venus 1962 Final Project Report. My attempts to download this one from NASA tech reports server have failed. I might have found a used dead-tree copy online for about $45. Yakushima (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not support the merge. The articles are both quite long enough even if the most severe elimination of duplicate material were to be undertaken (and I don't think that's a good idea anyway). They each have a unique and interesting focus.

Perhaps this merge proposal should now be closed? This is the first comment for many months, and there seems a rough consensus not to merge. Andrewa (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. People should not delve into article subjects of which they know little. Manitobamountie (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You're one fortunate person to be able to read the knowledge level of people. Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How much did it cost?

My log-in fortune cookie for to-day reads:

The Greatest Mathematical Error The Mariner I space probe was launched from Cape Canaveral on 28 July 1962 towards Venus. After 13 minutes' flight a booster engine would give acceleration up to 25,820 mph; after 44 minutes 9,800 solar cells would unfold; after 80 days a computer would calculate the final course corrections and after 100 days the craft would cirlce the unknown planet, scanning the mysterious cloud in which it is bathed. However, with an efficiency that is truly heartening, Mariner I plunged into the Atlantic Ocean only four minutes after takeoff. Inquiries later revealed that a minus sign had been omitted from the instructions fed into the computer. "It was human error", a launch spokesman said. This minus sign cost L4,280,000. -- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"

Is the sum "L4,280,000" correct? I guess Mr. Pile is British and the 'L' means pounds? Would be nice if the article mentioned roughly how much the failed Mariner I project cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)