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.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight High‑importance 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 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) 5,918 5,918 Development 8,803 8,803 Command and Data Handling (CDH) 4,038 4,038 Propulsion 1,004 1,004 Electrical power 2,195 2,195 Telecommunications 260 260 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 2,491 4,895 Batteries 493 493 Scientific instruments 1,911 1,911 Termination 369 369 Names 539 539 See also 259 259 References 3,681 8,889 Bibliography 5,208 5,208 External links 1,573 1,573 Total 54,552 54,552

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]

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]

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

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]