Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)

Galileo (spacecraft) 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
Date	Process	Result
June 4, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 7, 2021, and December 7, 2022.

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Galileo project was copied or moved into Galileo (spacecraft) with this edit on 27 January 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Galileo Probe was copied or moved into Galileo (spacecraft) with this edit on 4 February 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Section sizes

Section size for Galileo (spacecraft) (28 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	5,873	5,873
Development	9,295	9,295
Command and Data Handling (CDH)	4,038	4,038
Propulsion	1,004	1,004
Electrical power	2,195	2,195
Telecommunications	548	548
Instruments	1,761	15,810
Despun section	22	5,588
Solid-state imager (SSI)	1,550	1,550
Near-infrared mapping spectrometer (NIMS)	1,187	1,187
Ultraviolet spectrometer / extreme ultraviolet spectrometer (UVS/EUV)	1,357	1,357
Photopolarimeter–radiometer (PPR)	1,472	1,472
Spun section	20	8,461
Dust-detector subsystem (DDS)	1,487	1,487
Energetic-particles detector (EPD)	1,321	1,321
Heavy-ion counter (HIC)	1,327	1,327
Magnetometer (MAG)	2,062	2,062
Plasma subsystem (PLS)	1,082	1,082
Plasma-wave subsystem (PWS)	1,162	1,162
Galileo entry probe	8,869	11,660
Batteries	493	493
Scientific instruments	2,298	2,298
Termination	524	524
Names	675	675
See also	202	202
Notes	28	28
References	4,998	4,998
External links	1,462	1,462
Total	58,312	58,312

Merge with Galileo Probe[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. It's clearly uncontroversial and a week has passed, so I'm doing it. Tercer (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously this page was too big, but now that it refers only to the spacecraft, not the mission, it would be appropriate to merge it with Galileo Probe, it would be bizarre to have two tiny articles, one referring to the orbiter part, and another to the atmospheric probe part. Tercer (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I had a good bit of a read through, really well constructed article, two separate articles about the same thing isn't really needed. Should be merged. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Cassini-Huygens article is about both the orbiter and Titan lander. This article is essentially the same situation, so they should be merged again. Healpa12 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

navboxes[edit]

There are several navboxes which do not show the article title, are they relevant? If so, perhaps they should be combined, with collapsible sections. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An artefact of the split of the article into project and spacecraft. Removed the unused navbars. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High-gain antenna failure is not mentioned even once[edit]

I was reminded recently of the Galileo spacecraft's high-gain antenna failure to deploy, so looked at this article. Nowhere does it mention this failure. A Ctrl+F reveals nothing at all. I thought that I must've been thinking of a different spacecraft, but no, it was the Galileo spacecraft. As it turns out, all the information about this antenna failure is located on the Galileo project article. What a disgrace, an article which omits information so hard that it actually gas-lights people. BirdValiant (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred to have a single article, but other editors judged that it was too large. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who recommended the split, and the later merge with Galileo Probe. Not only the article was too large, in my opinion, but the focus was different, on the technical details of the spacecraft itself, as opposed to the mission as a whole. Perhaps we could add a "main article" hatnote to clarify the situation? Tercer (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and Tercer: I have fixed this particular problem so that hopefully people won't be gaslit into believing that the antenna actually deployed as designed. BirdValiant (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to find a different term to whip out when you don't like something in an article - "gaslit" - twice? Please. Have a care, old boy, have a care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA subpage move proposal[edit]

See discussion here and comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1802 on a par with the 8-bit 6502[edit]

1802 takes a minimum of 16 clock cycles to execute any instruction, 6502 takes 2-7 cycles to execute depending instructions. 1802 instructions are very limited, access to memory is by having the memory address pre-loaded into a register, no general purpose subroutine call/return instructions which need to be implemented via software making subroutine calls very costly.

So I do not agree that 1802 (much as I liked it) was on a par with 6502. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.147.20.2 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the source says. I never worked with the 1802 but did program 6502 for a time. It did indeed have JSR/RTS instructions. Apart from access to the zero page you had to load via a register. I take your point, and have modified the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]