Talk:Space Interferometry Mission

Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 July 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Space Interferometry Mission. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Space Interferometry Mission 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
May 7, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 7, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 7, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Spaceflight Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nomenclature

This site from NASA claims: SIM PlanetQuest (formerly called Space Interferometry Mission), scheduled for launch in 2015. Should the name of this page be SIM PlanetQuest? IvoShandor 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)r[reply]

Tasks

Tasks that need to be completed can be added below.

Done The lead needs rewritten per WP:LEAD. IvoShandor 01:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Add subsection to technology explaining how the mission uses the interferometer. IvoShandor 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did the mission shift from "Origins" to "Navigator."? (EDIT) Or did it, is it part of both? IvoShandor 08:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (EDIT - IvoShandor 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Instruments section needs some more details. IvoShandor 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added significant information since I posted this, I think it needs a bit of clarification and still expansion. I would like more detail overall about its systems and their development. I am just now starting to delve into some online scholarly databases. See what that turns up. IvoShandor 08:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the lead adequate? I am starting to think it could use with a fourth paragraph, and maybe a couple additional sentences to the current paragraphs? Would that be too long for FAC, what does anyone think? IvoShandor 08:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edit. IvoShandor 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First pass complete. IvoShandor 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass complete on: "Budget," "Optical Interferometry," "Stellar mass," "Instruments - section intro," "Black Holes and dark matter," and "Planet hunting." IvoShandor 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: IvoShandor 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Left to complete second pass -

~~Lead~~ IvoShandor 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Development - Section intro~~ IvoShandor 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~New Technologies~~ IvoShandor 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Launch date~~ IvoShandor 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mission - Section intro~~ IvoShandor 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Galactic mapping~~ IvoShandor 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IvoShandor 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass complete. IvoShandor 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering a third copy edit by me, but fear that I may have looked at this too much to be effective, I already found myself changing a few things back to a previous version while doing my second copy edit. I think it could use a bit more work in a few places, any volunteers? IvoShandor 08:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

A neat quote from Democritus:

There are innumerable worlds of different sizes. These worlds are at irregular distances, more in one direction and less in another, and some are flourishing, others declining. Here they come into being, there they die, and they are destroyed by collision with one another. Some of the worlds have no animal or vegetable life nor any water.

Wonder if there is some way to work that into the text using the cool quote templates. IvoShandor 06:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdsds

Reviewer Background

I had not seen this article before, and knew nothing of the subject mission. I was led here by an entry on the Portal:Space exploration/Things you can do page.

Overall

This is a very well crafted article! It cites a sufficient number of reliable sources, has nice images including both photos and diagrams, the article structure is good, and it seems (to a naive reader at least) fairly comprehensive. Congratulations!

Thank you. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The lead could be improved. The phrase, "American Space Agency, NASA" is non-standard. Its capitalization (at least) should be changed. Also, the first paragraph doesn't really mention that this is a planet-hunting mission. Yet that is the incredibly interesting and notable aspect of this mission! It should be mentioned prominently, like in the very first sentence, even.

Any other comments on the lead, I will institute your suggestion. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have incorporated your comments, anything else? IvoShandor 11:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Development" section

I would like to see this section, which has numerous sub-sections, starting with a one or two sentence introduction, rather than a four paragraph introduction. In essence the section needs a "lead" of its own, so readers can decide if they want to read the section carefully, skim it, or skip forward in the article.

This will be incorporated per your suggestion. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done IvoShandor 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Launch date" sub-section

I would like to see this sub-section be retitled simply, "Launch". It should cover the planned date of the launch, but also (as it does) the launch vehicle(s) being considered and the launch location. It could cover how the sizing of the spacecraft and the intended orbit limit the selection of the launch vehicle. Also, although Shuttle and existing EELVs might be the only options today, since launch isn't today has there been citable consideration of using newer launch vehicles not yet available, e.g. SpaceX Dragon or ISRO GSLV or Ariane?

Nice catch, of course. : ) IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section title changed. I haven't run across any info like you have suggested, but I will do a specific search and see where that leads. IvoShandor 11:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mission" section

The Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit deserves the amount of discussion it gets. But reading the article I still don't fully understand it. What paramters set the location for the satellite? Why will it trail by 95 million km instead of 100 million km or 50 million km? Also, why is the rate given in AU/year but the final distance in million km?

Further explanation necessary, roger that. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ending

I sense the article could use a concluding section. Perhaps tying the work into other missions and research. How does this mission compare with the research which just these past days has gotten attention for finding an possibly Earth-like exoplanet, etc.? Alternately, maybe what it needs is a "Criticisms" section. Surely someone, somewhere, is dis-satisfied with the results of the mission definition process?

Perfect, I was struggling with this, there are plenty of intricately tied in missions to talk about in a brief conclusion, two or three paragraphs good you think? IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "Significance" section and "Criticism" section, both are hidden right now, I will have to do some research before they have content. The Significance section will be pretty easy as I can basically talk about SIM's complementary aspects to future Navigator and Origins missions such as Terrestrial Planet Finder, all easily citeable information. The criticism section will require some digging, a lot of the specific scientific criticism has been due to budget cuts, but that seems like it would be better suited for some other article. IvoShandor 11:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last thoughts

Again, this is a great article. Best of luck in moving to FA status! (Sdsds - Talk) 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments above, thanks again. IvoShandor 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

I have reviewed the article according the GA criteria and put the article on hold until issues are addressed. Please fix the following issues and I'll pass the article. The article was an interesting read, especially since it focuses on information in my current Astrobiology class.

First, I want to say that I'm impressed there are so many images that can be used for astronomy-related articles. It's great to have a whole field of articles that have public domain images and don't have to worry about fair use rationales. Not really a suggestion, but just thought that should be said.
Done In the intro, "One of the main themes of the mission is the hunt for Earth-sized planets orbiting stars other than the Sun or extrasolar planets." I don't think the word "themes" should be used, perhaps "goals"?
Done "Work on the SIM project required scientists and engineers to move through eight specific technological milestones, all eight milestones were completed in November 2006 and represented new technological developments, made specifically for the SIM PlanetQuest mission." The second half of the sentence should be reworded, otherwise it sounds like information is being duplicated/repeated. Something like "...and these new technological developments made specifically for the SIM PlanetQuest mission were completed in November 2006". Something to that effect that maintains the information currently present.
Done "Currently, NASA has set a preliminary launch date for 2015. U.S. federal budget documents confirm that a launch date is expected "no earlier" than 2015 or 2016." Combine these two sentences. Also "FY 2010" should be wikilinked like it is in the Development section since this is its first occurrence.
Done The two last paragraphs in the lead start with the same words, change one to allow for more variety.
Done Correct spelling of "four-moth" in the first sentence of the Development section.
Done In the intro it is said that the eight milestones are completed in Nov 2006, but in the Development section says they are still working on them. Correct the one that is right. The paragraph could also use some inline citations about the completion of the various milestones.

This was reworded, it was accurate, just unclear, there are two separate sets of milestones - engineering and technology - this wasn't clear as it stood, should be now. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now irrelevant see below. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I jacked up your numbering scheme, sorry, how do I comment without screwing it up? IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fix the link for Delta IV, it goes to a dab page. In the Launch section, within in one of the reference templates, "metrology" might be misspelled and "Retreived" is in another.
Done Almost the exact same thing is said in the first sentence of the development section and the subheading Beginnings. One should be removed/reworded. The third sentence in the Beginnings needs a space in front of it, as it is currently right next to the inline citation from the prior sentence ("[2]In 1998").

Someone said I should put a lead in that section, I am just removing it as several concerns were related to it and all of the information is elsewhere in the section, spacing fixes on sentence as well. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done If the first paragraph in the development section is just an introduction to the rest of information in the heading, it is not really necessary. Consider removing it and maybe incorporating part of it into the intro or the other subheadings.

See above. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done In the New technologies section, "Another of the milestones involved combining" add "one" after another.
Done "The final requirement before beginning work on flight controls was to make sure that all of the systems developed for the mission worked cohesively, this final NASA technology goal was completed last as it was dependent upon the others." Change the comma to a semicolon.
Done "The final three engineering milestones have due dates are set for 2009." Remove "are".
Done "In addition, as part of Phase B, the SIM PlanetQuest project will go through a number of reviews." A number of reviews by who? Astronomers? Government agencies? Others? Also, in the next sentence, add a comma after peer reviewed.

The serial comma is personal preference, especially in that sentence but I added it anyway. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done "With the release of the FY 2007 NASA budget predictions changed again, this time to a date no earlier than 2015 or 2016." Add comma after "budget".
Done Fix the spacing of the inline citations after "The 2007 change represented a difference of about three years from the 2006 launch date, outlined in NASA's FY 2006 budget as being two years behind 2005 budget predictions"
Done - I think??? Consider moving the image of the telescopes down a little, there is room for it in the Budget section a few paragraphs down. The one with the scientists in it in the New developments section could also be adjusted.

A bit confused as to which image you are referring to of the telescope. What do you mean by adjusted? Just moved down, if so, I went ahead and did that. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done "As of the February 2007 newslette,r the plans for the refocus were in the process of being completed." Fix comma issue with newsletter.

My God, I copy edited this over and over. Damn it! How do I miss this stuff? IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done "The accuracy of its global astrometric grid is 3.47 µas." Remove space after this sentence and inline citation.
Done "It is after the calibration that "the fun begins."" Although the fun phrase is in quotes, perhaps mention who said it. Ex: "one technician/spokesperson for the SIM stated,".

I am not even sure I added that as I couldn't find it in any refs, reworded. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reword "The Broad Survey will look at around 2,000 stars to help determine the abundance of Neptune and larger mass planets around all star-types in Earth's sector of the Milky Way." It sounds like we're looking for Neptune again. Maybe "abundance of large mass planets that are Neptune-sized" or "abundance of large mass planets about the same size as Neptune" or whatever you think is best. Also, in the next paragraph, add a wikilink for Jupiter at its first occurrence, and remove the second one.
Done "Other tasks that the SIM will perform for the TPF mission will include, providing optimal times for TPF to observe stars where SIM detected terrestrial planets, as well as the orbital characteristics of the planets." Remove the comma after include.
Done "Through this technique, SIM will be able to output accurate masses for representative examples for nearly every star type, including brown dwarfs, hot white dwarfs, red giant stars and elusive black holes." Add comma after red giant stars.

Again I feel this is personal preference but again I have added it for the sake of argument. : ) IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done "Currently, astronomers know little about the shape and size of our galaxy relative to what they know about other galaxies; as residents of the Milky Way the galaxy is hard for humans to observe." Reword the statement after the semicolon, elaborate on it a little more.
Done The hidden comment "<-- ==Significance==&==Criticism== -->" creates a gap between the black holes and dark matter section and the see also section. You can remove it and make a notice here on the talk page about it. For now, you don't need to create these sections to meet the broad aspect, but it would be great to add these later.

Altogether, there are a lot of things to fix, but I am still only going to leave this article on hold rather than failing it since I know that you will be dedicated in fixing these due to my experience in working with you. The article will be on hold for the mandatory seven days and I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can if you have any questions. When you are done with the corrections, please let me know on my talk and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. This is also my finals week, so there may be a delay. --Nehrams2020 08:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed the concerns above. I have commented on a few of them above making sure to completely screw up the numbering scheme you had going above. Sorry about that. IvoShandor 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more things

Don't worry about screwing up the numbers, I think the only way for them to stay fixed is to use the # sign and then :, just like we do at GAC for the on-hold articles. A few more minor things that should still be worked on:

Done "By February 2007 many of the budget cuts outlined in the FY 2007 budget for were already being felt within the project." Remove "for" after 2007.
Done "Work on the SIM project required scientists and engineers to move through eight specific new technology milestones, all eight milestones were completed by November 2006." It still sounds duplicated, maybe something like "Work on the SIM project required scientists and engineers to move through eight specific new technology milestones, and by November 2006, all eight had been completed." Reword it to something like that, just don't use "eight milestones" twice.
Done Also remove the comma after "including" in "In addition, as part of Phase B, the SIM PlanetQuest project will go through a number of reviews by NASA including, System Requirements Review" in the Status after 2006 section.
The images do look better, although I realized that it may just be the size of my monitor, so I'm sure it looks different on everybody's (plus maybe the browser they are using).

They look better to me now too. : )

Regarding the serial commas, I know some people like/dislike it, but since I saw the serial comma being used more throughout the article, I figured I should point out all of the ones that weren't using it so that it would be uniform. Anyway, sorry I'm so nitpicky, I just want the article to be the best it can. Again, let me know when you're done and I'll pass it. Good work fixing these so quickly. --Nehrams2020 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. I guess future articles can become GAs! I am very impressed with the improvement of the article within such a short period and it's interesting to read the conversations with yourself on the majority of this talk page. Anyway, keep up the good work, it's always interesting to read a GA you worked on. --Nehrams2020 21:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding inclination of exoplanets

I hope that SIM PlanetQuest will find inclination (one of the orbital elements) for all or nearly all of the exoplanets as of 2015-2025. Finding inclination is important because we can find the true mass of all or nearly all of the exoplanets. Then we can determine the true mass types of planets according to planetary mass type (currently a makeup classification). By time when is 2015-2025, this classification of planets by mass would exist by BlueEarth working in IAU and have assembly of new, makeup classification and release into scientific literature. BlueEarth 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

" The Broad Survey will look at around 2,000 stars to help determine the abundance of Neptune-mass and larger planets around all star-types in Earth's sector of the Milky Way.[28] The Broad Survey will aim for quantity over quality.[28] This lower accuracy program will survey a much larger 2,000 star selection."

So which one searches 2,000 stars? According to this 2,000 is larger than 2,000, which is gibberish. Zazaban 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed, that was some unclear wording but it didn't really imply that 2000 was larger than 2000, maybe a bit redundant but contradictory? Anyway, it should be clear now. IvoShandor 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should be described in past tense

This mission should be described as "was", in my opinion. There is no scheduled launch date, and missions without scheduled launches are effectively dead (that doesn't mean it couldn't be revived). I might add that McCain has been inclined to cut NASA budgets in the name of "taxpayer value", and Obama wants the moon shot delayed 5 years to pay for education programs. In short, this mission is going nowhere fast and the article should reflect that.Bdell555 (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third paragraphs of the lead section attempt to address exactly this issue. Would it be possible to find a reliable source citation wherein some credible person states this mission is "effectively dead" (or similar wording)? With that citation available, we could justifiably begin changing the tense of the article as you suggest. (sdsds - talk) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has called this mission dead. I would like to update the info though. There have been two SIM PlanetQuest newsletters released this year, one in February and one in May. Some of the announcements in those newsletters were still soliciting proposals. I am going to pour over the latest budget documentation and see what I can root out about this mission. It would be sad to see it die too. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sim Mission page, says here, mission deferred indefinitely. Budget estimates are likely to confirm this. The NASA link above was updated in May 2008, after the last newsletter. We may find mention of SIM's death in media articles written about NASA's budget at the time. --IvoShandor (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still deferred indefinitely but . . . see below. --IvoShandor (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIM Lite

A new, less costly, option is under study by the SIM team. It would use the technology developed for SIM PlanetQuest and is a bit more modest in scale. It will only incorporate two interferometers, instead of three, and search for terrestrial planets around only 65 nearby stars, instead of 250. You can see a paper here (cache), and also note the SIM website has been updated to reflect the new mission name. I am unsure whether to incorporate this information here or in a new article on SIM Lite. Thoughts? --IvoShandor (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

filled in red link for microarcseconds Puzl bustr (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

It should be pointed out somewhere how the possible observation and measurements would have compared to the existing instruments (HARPS VLT KECK LBT E-ELT). Furthermore how well can the goals of planet finding be accomplished by telescopes that are already in use or are being build. For example Harps has radial velocity of 30cm/s and the E-ELT will have less than 10cm/s.--92.225.95.170 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space Interferometry Mission. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space Interferometry Mission. 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/20070617080548/http://msc.caltech.edu/missions/SIMPQ/ to http://msc.caltech.edu/missions/SIMPQ/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Space Interferometry Mission. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

make page: List of interferometric space missions