Talk:Galileo project

Name

Is there anyone who can explain why GalileO and not GalileI is the name? I would say that the surname is Galilei, so it is named for his first name? Why?

Because that is the name that the astronomer is commonly known by. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric Entry probe

hi There is a nice picture of the atmospheric entry probe in "atmospheric reentry" page on wikipedia. Maybe nice to add?

The instruments aboard Galileo should be described in more detail. Information is available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/instruments/index.html

• Done! :) --Deglr6328 06:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to "Journey Beyond Selene" by Jeffrey Kluger (1999), the low-gain bandwidth was initially 8 bits per second. A recent Slashdot 'legacy' article claimed that the bandwidth was raised to 120bps using compression methods. Also, Kluger stated that the high-gain deployment wasn't attempted until Galileo had passed Mars ... was that after the *first* flyby?

• I'm the author of that slashdot article :-D ; fixed a couple LGA related things and added more detail on the increase to 160bps.--Deglr6328

This passage - "The probe would have been melted and vaporized after many hours of falling, completely dissolving into Jupiter's interior. The parachute would have melted or been burnt first, after roughly 3-4 hours. Then the probe would have gone into a free fall through a black dark abyss lasting many hours. Due to the higher pressure, the metals would have been vaporised once their critical temperature had been reached."

(1) It repeats "melted and vaporized" twice, with "parachute failure" sentence _in between_, but parachute failure happened _before_ "melt and vaporize", right? It just doesn't sounds nice.

(2) "black dark abyss" sounds like poetry (I mean, it is possible that it is factually incorrect). In reality, at tamperatures where metals melt, atmosphere wouldn't be "black" anymore. It will shine with red from temperatere, probably. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.171 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

incorrect energy units?

The article says "The PLS will measure particles in the energy range from 9 volts to 52 kilovolts." Energy is in joules, not volts. I presume that the author is referring to the 'electronvolt'. What do you think? Bobblewik  (talk) 17:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that when I added it to the article but figured it might actually be "volts" because I confused it with the plasma WAVE subsystem and thought...well maybe its measuring the electric field strength etc. However reading the homepage http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/instruments/pls.html clearly indicates (~2/3ds down) that it is measuring particles with eV energies. However the same page says it measures from "9 to 52 kilovolts" and "0.9 eV to 52 KeV"....I'm going to go with the latter.--Deglr6328 01:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Impact of mission

Is it worth a section on the impact of Galileo on later deep space missions by NASA? The planning of the project began in the mid-1970s but the design was frozen before the Voyager results could be fully interpreted. As a result the Jupiter atmosphere probe had less scientific interest than a probe of Europa. Arguably a consequence of Galileo was the 'faster, quicker, cheaper' NASA ethos of the 1990s.

that seems a bit speculative at best....--Deglr6328 05:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Galileo's Atmospheric Entry Probe

"All the probe's electronics were powered by lithium sulfur dioxide (LiSO2) batteries which provided a nominal power output of about 580 watts with an estimated capacity of about 21 ampere-hours on arrival at Jupiter."

This is missing important information - knowing what the total power output and the amp-hour capacity was is totally useless without knowing what voltage the battery was providing.

What this article needs

Pictures of Jupiter! That was the major mission of Galileo... (just my opinion)

Whoa! Way too much information! Try to speak of the details in a little less complicated manner.

Atmospheric entry probe

There is a nice picture of the atmospheric entry probe on the "atmospheric reentry" page on Wikipedia. Maybe nice to add?

Music / Greetings

I was watching a documentary last night and I think it said that Galileo has Mozart's The Magic Flute, a song by Chuck Berry, and greetings in 60 languages on board. Is this true or did I mishear it? If so, does anyone know what the Chuck Berry song is. Lastly, is it worth including in the article? Dgen 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was the Voyager Spaceprobes. You can go straight to the Voyager Golden Record and read more about the music. Regarding Chuck Berry it was Johnny B. Goode. He also played a live concert at the Voyager launch. RhinoMind (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Eight Years

This spacecraft spent 8 years in orbit of Jupiter and took no pictures of the planet ? What a waste. 65.92.244.134 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was this spacecraft sent to Jupiter? It didn't even take any pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.188.210 (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what prompted these questions, as Galileo certainly did take pictures of Jupiter. Most of the "Top Ten Science Images" at the JPL Galileo gallery are of Jovian moons, but two are of the plant itself: "A Different View of Jupiter's Great Red Spot" and "Jovian Lightning and Moonlit Clouds" and the Jupiter section of the JPL Galileo gallery has subpages for each of the 17 orbits. The camera was just one of many instruments onboard, and the HG antenna problems certainly did limit what could be sent back. I assume that the original plan was for imagery to make up much more than the 25% of the downlink limit they set for use of the LG antenna. -- ToE^T 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Theme song?

Back when the probe dropped into the atmosphere, a group of engineers at JPL adapted the lyrics of Tom Petty's song Free Fallin' as a sort of theme song. They used to be posted to the web, but I can't find them now. Anyone remember the site, or the lyrics? If they can be ref'ed, I'd like to add this bit to the song's article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is no way a GA!!

First, there are two full sections until you encounter the first reference. THis is inadmissible. Secondly, please reformat titles such as the table of contents won't take this much space. Thirdly it has a tag placed for expanding a section. Lastly, pelase add al least the titles to each of the references. Nergaal (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

"maximum of 160 bits per second" ... "total amount of data transmitted throughout the mission to about 30 gigabytes"

I tagged the above with dubious because (160 * 3600 * 24 * 365) / 8 = 630720000 bytes per year, or 630 megabytes; 30 gigabytes implies Galileo operated for over 45 years, did it? Instead, 30 gigabits is plausible, but these numbers need citations in any case. -84user (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the calculation is correct but there is one flaw in the argument; the physical data rate was about 160 bits/second but as data compression was also included in several software updates an effective data rate of ~1000 bits/second could be archieved.

This means that the annual amount of data was about 3.9 GBytes/year. Compared to the lifetime of the program (from the arrival at Jupiter till 2003) this sounds absolutely probable An detailed information can be found here: http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/95_20/gll_case_study.html

CDH?

"The CDH was actively redundant, with two parallel strings running at all times" could we say the CDH module or the CDH unit? I don't think CDH by itself makes sense

"two parallel strings" -- huh? two communication channels? two processors? not getting it Feldercarb (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Galileo probe results

The section on the atmospheric probe describes its makeup and mechanical performance well, but says nothing about (and does not point to references about) the data it returned, how the data has been interpreted, how it forced revisions of models of Jupiter. Twang (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RCA 1802

The article states that the RCA 1802 CPU was also used on Viking and Voyager...however, if you read the Wikipedia article about the 1802, it specifically states that this microprocessor was not used on Viking or Voyager. Either this article is mistaken, or the RCA 1802 article is flawed. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvinlusk (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not on a permanent orbit?

The text says the mission was terminated by destroying the probe purposefully, but it is not clear if there was a choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.206 (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The article states in the Lead;

"On September 21, 2003, after 14 years in space and 8 years in the Jovian system, Galileo's mission was terminated by sending the orbiter into Jupiter's atmosphere at a speed of over 48 kilometres (30 mi) per second, reducing the chance of contaminating local moons with terrestrial bacteria."

This in part is due to the COSPAR guidelines on planetary protection, and this is the same reason Cassini will be ended by a similar burn up in Saturn's atmosphere. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It was always possible to leave Galileo on orbit. But, the Jupiter system is crowded with moons and an intense magnetic field. With all those things perturbing Galileo, its very long-term future orbital behavior couldn't be reliably forecast. Leaving it dead and uncontrollable meant a risk of it eventually colliding with one of the nearby moons, which then would contaminate that moon with whatever microorganisms had gone along for the ride in a state of hibernation. Scientists would like, in the future, to explore those moons. They don't want to discover any Earth bacteria or viruses in the process, because it would introduce "noise" into a search for indigenous organisms. There's also some potential that Earth organisms could be hostile to the natives. There has been speculation about native organisms living amongst Jupiter's upper clouds; but, priorities must be set and choices made. It's presumed that the moons are more promising than Jupiter itself as far as the prospects of biology are concerned. So, into Jupiter's clouds it was to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galileo (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080613233904/http://www.resa.net:80/nasa/engineer.htm to http://www.resa.net/nasa/engineer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Zenocentric"

In the "Orbital parameters - reference system" infobox heading, it says Geocentric orbit. That's clearly incorrect for a probe orbiting Jupiter. Since orbiters of other planets use a Greek-rooted adjectival form (e.g. "Areocentric" for Mars, "Hermiocentric" for Mercury, "Cytherocentric" for Venus), Jovian orbiters should be "Zenocentric" and I'm changing the infobox to reflect this. Dziban303⁓talk 03:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galileo (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721053820/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/docs/galileo-end.pdf to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/docs/galileo-end.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22009/1/97-0449.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524234825/http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_020204.html to http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_020204.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galileo (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22009/1/97-0449.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20111124054217/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22009/1/97-0449.pdf on http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22009/1/97-0449.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Galileo (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040721081850/http://www.lowell.edu/users/ppr/ to http://www.lowell.edu/users/ppr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040721081612/http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/ to http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721050447/http://lasers.jpl.nasa.gov/PAPERS/GOPEX/gopex_s2.pdf to http://lasers.jpl.nasa.gov/PAPERS/GOPEX/gopex_s2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614133445/http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/95_20/gll_case_study.html to http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/95_20/gll_case_study.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

unnecessary "human"

The use of "human" in this sentence seems silly.

"...Galileo performed the first asteroid encounter by a human spacecraft..."

First, it's not a human-crewed spacecraft.

Second... is this seriously accounting for some known non-human spacecraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, "human" is superfluous disambiguation here. I've removed it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Venus imaging

This paper is probably worth a sentence or two in the Other science conducted by Galileo section.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5027/1531

©Geni (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Gaspra encounter timing

Currently the article, in relation to the Gaspra imaging data, says: "The last two images were relayed back to Earth in November 1991 and June 1992". This isn't supported by the references and, frankly, seems to be untrue. Comments?Ordinary Person (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Botched split

This article was supposed to be the splitting of the section on the spacecraft itself, with the main article being moved to Galileo program. The move was done incorrectly, with the talk page and the history remaining here rather than on the main article. It's very easy to fix, but one needs admin rights to do it, which I don't. Tercer (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The split was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in WP:CORRECTSPLIT. This article is about the spacecraft. Our procedure does not call for the article history to be moved, but for the split to be acknowledged in the history, which it is [1], using the required pro forma from WP:COPYWITHIN. As for the talk page, nearly everything on it is related to this article, and not Galileo program, and the procedure does not call for copying the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it hasn't. The procedure is to leave the main article in place, and create a new page for the subarticle. You did the opposite. Tercer (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Note a prohibition on cut and paste moves. Note the required change history entries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this really a program?

When speaking of the entire project versus the actual Galileo spacecraft, NASA refers to it as the 'Galileo mission'[2] rather than a program. In NASA terminology, 'programs' are usually something that involves multiple separate spacecrafts, such as Discovery or New Frontiers. (See also: Template:NASA planetary exploration programs) Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There were three missions: the original mission, the Galileo Europa Mission, and the Galileo Millennium Mission. But only one spacecraft. We listed the James Webb Space Telescope as a program. But I was thinking of is as a program in the budgetary sense. I don't know what the NASA terminology is. NASA's history refers to it as the "Galileo project" [3]. I would have no objection to the article being renamed "Galileo project". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved this section here from Galileo program, and moved the page as well to Galileo project, fixing the split. Tercer (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the GA nomination since the article has been deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What? Why? The article has simply been moved to Galileo project. It's the same article. Tercer (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tercer (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

My initial impression is rather positive. The article covers everything about the mission, is gorgeously illustrated with photos taken by Galileo, and is sourced heavily from serious books. It does seem too large, though. At 98,294 characters of readable prose, it is clearly in conflict with WP:LENGTH. Perhaps using Template:Rp would get rid of many superfluous characters, and also make the references more manageable? Or maybe it simply has too much detail? Tercer (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That won't work because neither the templates nor the references count as prose. The article doesn't technically conflict with WP:LENGTH because it is still under 100K, but what I was thinking of is splitting it in two, with one article on the spacecraft, and a second for the mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "technically" complying or not with WP:LENGTH, the numbers there are guidelines, not mathematical bounds. In any case, I think splitting the section "spacecraft" into its own subarticle is the optimal solution. The main topic is clearly the mission, and the technical details of the probe are of more specialised interest. Tercer (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I've reviewed the pictures. Good stuff, copyright clear. I'm just bothered by the mission patch. It's right at the top, and it's hideous. I wonder if a photo of the original patch would qualify as free? It seems so, since the original patch is NASA work. There are plenty of photos of it online, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at the references now. Very solid, actual published books, specialized press, and NASA itself. A problem is that several link to old websites, and are at risk of link rot. I've checked several and fixed three myself, but I'm not going to check all of them, there are literally hundreds of citations, somebody should go through with a bot. Tercer (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've also ran a search for copyvios, it's clean. Tercer (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Link rot is always a problem, but not nearly as bad as on sports articles, where sites have half lives of 90 days or less. I have run a checklinks check [7] and all links are live. Should any die they can be retrieved from archive. This has already been done for thirty of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that NASA gives you a soft redirect without a 404, so this tool can't catch all the problems. For example, Ref. 103 is dead but it claims its alive. Also, Ref. 90 gives me a 403, and for some reason this tool doesn't detect it. Tercer (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a problem. I have retrieved ref 103 from archive. Ref 90 works fine for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it's a GDPR 403 then. I went through all NASA links to find more of these hidden 404s, and there were several. For press releases they were just moved to a different address, so I could find the new link. But refs 233, 235, and 237 are really dead, so you'll have to do your archive magic. Tercer (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Y All three restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't find the speed gained by the gravitational assists mentioned in section Galileo_(spacecraft)#Flybys in the sources. I find it weird because the introduction states that no speed should be gained in the second Earth encounter, by this section states that it gained 13,320 km/h. Also, it claims that the Venus encounter gave it 8,030 km/h, which is almost, but not exactly the same as the 2.2 km/s claimed in the section Galileo_(spacecraft)#Venus_encounter (which is in fact supported by the source). Tercer (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed these unsourced speeds. The former looks like an error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. The speed gain does seem consistent with the animation in File:Animation_of_Galileo_trajectory.gif. I'd trust the book more, though. Tercer (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It was suspiciously the same as the number of retries on the antenna, suggesting a possible confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've finished reading the whole article. The prose is quite good, in the whole gigantic article there was a single unparseable sentence. It's direct, clear, no-nonsense. I couldn't find any WP:OR, neutrality is almost automatic given the subject, and the article is very comprehensive. It has everything one might want to know about Galileo and more. That's a problem, though. Not only the article becomes too large, but it's also full of unnecessary detail. Previously I had suggested splitting the "Spacecraft" section into its own article, as it has the most technical detail of narrow interest, but that's not enough; the whole article needs some careful pruning. Tercer (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has been placed on hold, but no changes are proposed. Do you want me to split the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the changes I proposed; there's already an article on the Galileo probe. Perhaps that can be expanded to include also the material about the orbiter. The other change I proposed is to prune unnecessary detail from the rest of the article. Do you want me to point out everything that's too much detail? That's a massive amount of work. I can give you a few examples:

• the Background section goes on and on about the Grand Tour, of which Galileo was not part.
• in the Preparation section, the next-to-last paragraph describes some problems that were detected and fixed during testing. Seriously? Perhaps it would be noteworthy if no problems had been detected!
• the last paragraph of the Preparation section describes the crew of the Shuttle mission that didn't happen. Who cares? Even the crew of the Shuttle mission that did happen is irrelevant! Of course, that is also detailed in the section Launch.
• in the Reconsideration section, there's these sentences: Consideration was given to using the USAF's Titan IV launch system with its Centaur G Prime upper stage.[61] This was retained as a backup for a time, but in November 1988 the USAF informed NASA that it could not provide a Titan IV in time for the May 1991 launch opportunity, owing to the backlog of high priority Department of Defense missions.[62] Again, who cares? It didn't happen!
• in the section Venus encounter, Unfortunately, three hours into the flyby, the tracking station at Goldstone had to be shut down due to high winds.. Who cares?
• the whole section Galileo Optical Experiment. Maybe it's worth noting that it happened, but the precise details of the experimental setup?
• the whole paragraph A final discovery occurred during the last two orbits of the mission. When the spacecraft passed the orbit of Amalthea, the star scanner detected unexpected flashes of light that were reflections from seven to nine moonlets. None of the individual moonlets were reliably sighted twice, so no orbits were determined. It is believed that they were most likely debris ejected from Amalthea and form a tenuous, and perhaps temporary, ring. and the following section Star Scanner.

I think that's enough to convince you that there's a lot of unnecessary detail in the article. There isn't much point in listing everything here, it's easier to just go through the article removing them. Tercer (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the above is unnecessary, although maybe the bit about the grand tour could be cut back, and all are important to providing a "comprehensive article that neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", and will not be entertained. However, I will make the split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Split complete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I ask for a bit of civility and respect. I didn't invest several hours of work in this review, and some effort gathering specific examples of unnecessary detail, to be answered with a curt "will not be entertained" without even any argument. If that's all you have to say we should just end this review. Tercer (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, here we go then with the arguments:

• Preparation. The testing and checking was an important part of the project.
• Deleted the crew details.
• The possibility of alternative launch on Titan IV was important. The reader might well wonder why it was not used. Had it been, things might have turned out better.
• Shutting down the DSN hampered collection of data on Venus. Data was lost. Added words to this effect.
• Another editor thought the details of the Galileo Optical Experiment worth detailing, so there is no consensus to delete.
• The star scanner was an important part of the mission. As was the discovery of moonlets around Amalthea. Another editor thought it important too, so there is no consensus to delete.

None of this is in the article any more due to the split. However, if you wish to close the review, that is fine too, and no hard feelings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Another editor thought the details are important" is a tautological argument, it will be true for anything in Wikipedia. In any case, the question here is not whether there is consensus for deleting this stuff, but whether it is unnecessary detail for the purposes of the Good Article criteria. About Venus: the article doesn't state that data collection was hampered; and it is doubtful that it would be, was data was just stored in the tape and transmitted later.

That is not correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about the split; you moved the main article to Galileo program, and want the review now to be about the small remnant at Galileo (spacecraft)? Nope, I'm not doing that, Galileo program is what I reviewed. Also note that Galileo Probe should probably be merged into Galileo (spacecraft). Tercer (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought you agreed with the article split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I did. Tercer (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. We're good then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to continue, it's okay to close the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably for the best. I'm rather exasperated by your attitude and don't think we'll make any progress. You can immediately renominate the article, and perhaps another reviewer will agree with your point of view. It's just frustrating to have done some much work for nothing. Tercer (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Maybe there should be a disambiguation page

So, the top of the article contains multiple links to different related pages, and now I think it's likely that a second page named "Galileo Project" should be created, for the Galileo Project started by Avi Loeb to look for evidence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Perhaps this article should be renamed something like "Galileo Project (Jupiter Mission)", and the other can be called "Galileo Project (UAP investigation)"?

Link to the new Galileo Project: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo

--118.208.65.116 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There is already Galileo_(disambiguation). Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Galileo studied what?

The section on the launch says that

> Galileo would later also study this.

The previous sentence gives no context as to what "this" is referring to. Perhaps sentences got re-ordered in the history and need to be put back in the right order? Or should this sentence be removed entirely?

You are right, this sentence means nothing (or is so obscure that it can't be deciphered), so I removed it. Artem.G (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the facts listed about Io, which ones were discovered by Galileo?

The first paragraph of the the section on Io states several facts about Io. It is unclear which fact about Io were discovered by Galileo and which were known prior. If these facts about Io (e.g. Io's size, the orbital resonance, the frictional forces which create lava flows) were discovered by Galileo, then perhaps it should be stated explicitly.

If not (i.e. if these facts were known prior to the Galileo mission), then maybe they don't have their place in this article? If these facts were known prior to the Galileo mission but are relevant for the rest of the paragraph, it should definitively be made explicit that they were not discovered by Galileo.

"Unmanned"?!

Why does this use the term "unmanned" instead of "robotic"? NASA's style guide has recommended against using "manned"/"unmanned" since 2004. 24.59.58.64 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That term is not used anywhere in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 It's in the description at the very top.

Galileo project

Unmanned NASA spacecraft which studied the planet Jupiter and its moons 24.59.58.64 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Y Oh. I didn't know the short description was human visible. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 Thank you! :) 24.59.58.64 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

GA subpage move proposal

I'd like to do some clean up of the GA subpages associated with this article and with Galileo (spacecraft). I understand that the pages came from a content split, but I think the names are out of sync with the pages they are considered to be reviews of. The subpages are:

• Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA1 - linked on this page in article history, but has the other page name
• Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA2 - linked on Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)
• Talk:Galileo project/GA1 - linked on this page

The first one was before the content split. I think it's up to the editors of this page to decide whether that review is more suitably associated with this page or the other one, but if it's here I think it should have the right name. Assuming it should be here, I propose to do the following moves:

• Talk:Galileo project/GA1 -> Talk:Galileo project/GA2 without leaving a redirect
• Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA1 -> Talk:Galileo project/GA1 without leaving a redirect
• Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA2 -> Talk:Galileo (spacecraft)/GA1 without leaving a redirect

I would then make sure article_history on each talk page reflects the correct links in each case. Any comments before I make the moves? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

During the GA review process, the article was split into two. The pages were later improperly swapped around by cutting and pasting instead of moving, thus trashing the article histories. So sure, go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)