Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit warring

@Dennis Bratland and GreenC: Stop edit warring! There's no rush to get the article how either of you might want it, and repeatedly reverting each other while saying, "You discuss it" "No, you discuss it!" is infantile. Just stop editing the article for the time being and engage in civil discussion. That's how Wikipedia works. And Dennis, you don't have to include everything that anyone and everyone says to be NPOV. To pick an extreme example, if some idiot says something stupid we don't have to include it just because it counters what someone else said. Not all commenters (in the media) are equal, and they don't all have to be given equal footing here. nagualdesign 04:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, I see you posted the section above while I was typing this. That's more like it. More of the same please. nagualdesign 04:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nagual, that's absurd. If edit warring is so terrible, then editors who have reverted others again and again and again are no better. The kind of hypocrisy one sees in these situations is disgusting. It's entirely based on a double standard that "it's OK when I do it because I'm righteous".

Your strawman argument is silly: I never said "all" responses should be included. I specifically mentioned fringe theories that we should not mention at all, such as anything based on the Earth being flat, or angering space lizards with our hubris. The irrational fear of space collisions or space junk, based on the incorrect belief that the car is in Earth orbit, or that the solar system is so crowded that a car out there is a hazard, or that it would have been any better to launch some concrete blocks rather than a Roadster, are not fringe. They are based on misinformation and faulty reasoning, but we have already been through numerous mainstream sources who hold these faulty believes. Sadly, we now are back to another version that ends with a calm reassurance that there is no risk that the car will collide with anything, without any context explaining why such a reassurance is needed. If a need exists to explain that a collision is not likely, then those who fear a collision are not mere fringe lunatics. Otherwise we'd need to reassure everyone that there are no angry space lizards.

More importantly, I don't ask that every response must go in the lead. That is your strawman attack. All I ask is for any. Any mention at all of non-SpaceX messages. We currently have no mention whatsoever of any reaction, even though much of the article is devoted to the reaction. The near-universal consensus among respectable, mainstream reliable sources is that this is not just about Musk being a chill dude with a cool sense of humor. There is near-universal consensus that he is a master showman and this is a brilliant PR stunt.

What is so embarrassing about all that? Put aside your feelings and defer to what the sources say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what is the "any" one sentence being proposed to be added to the WP:LEAD? —Sladen (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss each other and what we imagine our motives are. Just take the point, stop edit warring, and discuss content. Cheers. nagualdesign 04:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are that worked up about it, you should probably take a break for a day or so. There is WP:NODEADLINE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, if you're going to keep accusing me of edit warring, then you are obviously here to discuss other editors, rather than content. Listen to yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no further comment. Now, back to discussing content please. nagualdesign 04:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Aaaaaand now no one gets to edit the article... please everybody can we calm down and discuss things like adults? Discuss content, not other editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why is a random person from a random college quoted? How are they an expert in space debris? Does NASA or anyone else in charge of space debris listen to them? Or did they just pass a college course that included a chapter on it? Who are they? Do reliable sources cover what they say? Dream Focus 08:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that you're talking about Hugh Lewis, see the link provided by GreenC below. Lewis is a senior lecturer at the University of Southampton here in the UK, and an expert in the field of space debris. His tweet was covered in Deutsche Welle, which seems like a reliable secondary source to me. nagualdesign 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Hugh Lewis is also an author on a book on space debris. As experts go, this is person is notable enough. The alternatives (deleted) are opinions claiming the car could trigger a Kessler event. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I hate to keep coming back to this but a "reaction" is an opinion. This misunderstanding of what kinds of opinions are allowed has to be resolved. Opinions that are incorrect may be mentioned, so long as they represent a significant point of view.

The definition of opinions includes things that people are wrong about. The fact that some people think the car is still in orbit, or that it was in Earth orbit long enough to set off a cascading exploding satellite disaster, or that such a disaster is even likely, is a significant point of view. Is it misguided? Is it wrong? Yes, they're in error. Anyway, it's fine. Eliminate that one source, whatever. Exclude mention of he Kessler thing. No problem. There are plenty of others. The Guardian for example, concerned about littering. Or rather, that this is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to space becoming a playground for the rich, and their dumping ground. Some are concerned about the symbolism of tossing trash into space, even it it isn't technically a real risk.

BatteryIncluded, please do not repeat that the car is not in earth orbit and a Kessler event is not going to happen. You've said that a dozen times. I hear you. We all hear you. We all agree. No need to repeat it. I've asked you several times if you understand that WP:WEIGHT includes points of view that are significant, even if they are factually wrong. Do you understand that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we need to quote people who actually know what they're talking about. nagualdesign 21:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Policy contradicts you. See WP:VALID: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." There is nothing there about only mentioning those who "know what they are talking about". We definitely should not present this in a way that adds validity or legitimizes clearly erroneous points of view. The tone should not treat opinions that the car is a navigational hazard as factual, and we should clearly say why they are in error.

Can you please read over the relevant sections of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, etc., and Wikipedia:Describing points of view. If you wish to exclude opinions because they are too insignificant, have too few adherents and are fringe theories, yes, of course. But if you're excluding them on the grounds that they "don't know what they're talking about", then you're not reading the policy. This is exactly what I can't seem to make any headway with BatteryIncluded over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I said what I think, and no policy can contradict that.
2. Established scholarship = people who actually know what they're talking about.
3. I'm familiar with the guidelines, thanks.

nagualdesign 21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But what is your point, then? The discussion is over whether we should or should not mention opinions that are (almost certainly) in error. First you say you don't want those who don't know what they're talking about, and now you say you're "just saying"? You're not opposed to mentioning (without legitimizing) erroneous opinions? You were just interjecting what you "think" without intending it to be relevant to the topic? It's really hard to tell. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes. If you're asking whether we should include the opinions of people who have clearly got their facts wrong my answer is no, I think we should not. nagualdesign 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

organic

Re: "Radiation will eventually break down organic material and anything with carbon–carbon bonds". Is this not redundant; isn't anything with C-C bonds organic? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess. I think it will be more useful if we use parenthesis: "Radiation will eventually break down organic material (anything with carbon–carbon bonds)". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the everyday word associations with organic food and compost, a slightly longer explanation (as per the current) is probably preferable. This helps keep the text accessible to all. —Sladen (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, Organic matter ≠ organic compound. We just change it to organic compound. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The first version of this was "Organic material, i.e. any material with carbon–carbon bonds, including carbon fiber parts, will eventually break apart due to radiation." A later edit streamlined it to, "Radiation will eventually break down organic material, anything with carbon–carbon bonds, such as carbon fiber parts." Inserting the 'and' changes it from an implied "that is", which is grammatical and typical of normal speech, to a separate item, with a totally different meaning. Someone assumed it was a comma splice or an omitted conjunction in a list of items, instead of checking the sources to see if the editor knew what they meant. Copyeditors do this all the time: they have a preconceived notion about the structure of a sentence and they change the meaning by forcing it into that structure. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Coma or no coma, organic matter ≠ organic compound. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

CBS 60 Minutes s46e27

Based on the preview clip at [1], Musk is seen driving the Roadster during Episode season 46 episode 27 of CBS 60 Minutes "Fast Cars and Rocket Ships", broadcast on 30 March 2014. Is anyone with access to a copy able to watch the full episode and see if there is any usable citation material/quotes specifically about the car. —Sladen (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And [2] appears to be Musk driving his other one, the (very early) Roadster (Production 1). —Sladen (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead does not adequately summarize the article contents

Something like 1/3 of this article is devoted to describing the reaction among experts and major media to the idea of shooting a car into orbit around the Sun, and to Musk's claimed reasons for doing so. I attempted to add one (1) sentence to the lead summarizing the gist of this reaction, but others deleted it again and again and again. How can you have an article lead that ignores so much of the article's overall content?

I suggest the lead needs to summarize all sections of the article, and if the very first line is going to be devoted to adoringly parroting Elon Musk quotes, then the least we can do is follow that with mention of what most responsible experts have to say about it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what is the extra sentence being proposed to be added? —Sladen (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, like 30-ish words?

Musk's choice to shoot one of his Tesla Motors cars into space was generally interpreted as not merely a bit of fun, but rather as a savvy and unprecedented marketing and public relations coup.[1][2][3][4]

"public relations coup" sounds pretty peacocky, but get a load of the sources. They consistently argue that Musk is the envy of other CEOs and brand managers, and they are all playing catch-up in following his ability to reach young consumers and get the most out of the modern media landscape. Ad Age described it as everyone else still spending millions on a few more seconds of Super Bowl ad time while Musk is spending millions "executing his vision". So it's an accurate summary of the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Minus the peacocks and mid-sentence negatives: "The decision to launch a car into space was interpreted as a savvy marketing and public relations coup." —Sladen (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Any objections? nagualdesign 04:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. Honestly, anyone who thinks that language is too peacock-y for an encyclopedia ought to do something about "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value". Cut that quote down, or paraphrase it into language with a little more gravitas. If you are comfortable with such a direct quote at the very top of an article, then I don't see why 'savvy marketing coup' bothers you at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"savy marketing" and "PR coup" are cliche phrases and I wonder what they mean. Why is it a "coup", a coup is when you take something over - do sources actually call it a coup? These are hot button phrases. If we are going to emphasis this one aspect it be done neutrally: "Some observers saw it as a marketing success for Tesla". It's short and leaves open adding additional reactions: "Reactions to the Roadster were varied, some observers saw it as a marketing success for Tesla, while others interpreted it as an art object, and others saw it as space junk." Now it's a summary (per WP:LEAD) of the Reaction section without overemphasizing any one reaction. -- GreenC 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: Your suggestion would indeed be a good, brief, balanced, neutral summary of reactions the lead. — JFG ^talk 16:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

First, look up the definition of coup. Second, if those words lack the gravitas of an encyclopedia, then what is Musk’s dreamy quote doing there? I’m fine with the suggestion here, but these rationalizations prove my point about the lack of objectivity when it comes to this CEO superhero. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Quotes by Musk should also be shortened, paraphrased, or toned down. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Excess quotation of him is big part of the problem. If the article was the Elon Musk bio, so many quotes would convey the tone and personality of the subject, but he is not the subject of this article. The phrase "marketing coup" can be placed in quotes and attributed AdWeek. Or "marketing stunt". What I'm saying about this here doesn't come from nowhere: it's in the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem including a neutral summary of the reception section so long it's representative of the reception section. -- GreenC 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, the deleting the summary again and again and again is a contradiction of editing policy. If, as you claim, you want a neutral summary, then your job is to rewrite the existing content in the lead to be more neutral. What you did was a wholesale deletion, and another case of stuffing all non-SpaceX messaging to the ghetto at the end of the article. If you want to be taken for a neutral and reasonable editor, and not a flack, then do not nuke content wholesale. Rewrite it. Tweak it. Suggest improvements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a problem with me, I'm not here to cause you aggravation. -- GreenC 05:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself. If you are fine with a summary of reactions in the intro, then why did you delete such a summary entirely? You claim you only want a more neutral summary, but you made no attempt to make it more neutral. I guess I have to admit I do have a problem with a line of reason that is clearly self-contradictory. I asked you in my edit summaries and elsewhere to stop reverting and discuss. I ask you now to offer a more neutral summary of the article content. Sladen, nagualdesign, and I are comfortable with the suggested text above. Either agree to it, or suggest a different version, if it's true that you do want a neutral summary of the reactions in the intro. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyby or not flyby

The text says the roadster will not fly by Mars while the image indicates a flyby in 2020...Hektor (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Roadster will fly close to Mar's orbit soon, but Mars will be far away at that time. Due to the wear and tear the car will suffer (this could alter its orbit), it is hard to predict what will happen in the future. Maybe in 300 years it will have a flyby but within our lifetime it will not get close to Mars. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No flyby. (And still not a "spacecraft in a mission to Mars".) The space junk will fly as far as Mars' orbital path. But Mars could be in the opposite side of the Sun at each pass. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though, that it's misleading that image says "flyby". It should say "close encounter" or equivalent (assuming that's the case, instead of just a Mars orbit crossing). Meithan (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the graphic of the orbit from the article for now; it's an objectively misleading image that has false information on it. I'm working on creating a better graphic. I'm basing it on this image provided by Elon Musk himself on Twitter. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the image tweeted by Musk incorrect, it has the wrong aphelion. And I'm also working on an orbit diagram, similar to this video[3] (but using updated orbital elements). Should we both prepare an image and have others vote? Meithan (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the possible close encounter in 2020, I extracted orbital positions of the Earth, Mars and the Roadster for the next 2 years from JPL Horizons, yielding this. The 2020 encounter is pretty close: 7.5 million km. Does this qualify as a close encounter? I would definitely not call it a flyby though. Meithan (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting bit of info. I want to include it but we need to cite a source with easier access than Horizon's Database. Any suggestions? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Meithan: From what I understand "flyby" is simply another word for "encounter" in the context of space exploration. Even then, a distance of 7.5 million kilometres can't really be considered any type of encounter. There's been quite the debate over the years over whether or not Cassini's observation of 2685 Masursky is considered a "flyby". NASA has never publicly called the event an "encounter", and it made a closest approach of 1.2 million kilometres, much closer than the Roadster will come to Mars. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the JPL Horizons Ephemeris, the Roadster will pass about 20 lunar distances (<8Mkm) from Mars on October 6, 2020, flying over the north pole of Mars, close enough to change the orbital parameters of the "spacecraft". Tom Ruen (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like me to remove the word "flyby" to File:Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission orbit Feb 6 2018.png, that's easy enough... I replaced it with "closest approach < 8 million km". Tom Ruen (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Definintion: fly·by: a flight past a point, especially the close approach of a spacecraft to a planet or moon for observation.

Tom Ruen: I don't think 8 million km is "close enough to change the orbital parameters of the "spacecraft"" appreciably. The radius of Mars's sphere of influence is 0.58 million km, so I'd say that the influence on the Roadster's trajectory is really tiny. Formally, being outside the sphere of influence means that the Sun is still the dominant force, I'd say by far at this distance.

Frankly, I'd say it'd be best if we avoid the word flyby, as people might imagine things like photos of Mars. "Close encounter" seems more neutral and less attention-drawing for the general public. Meithan (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

For something like 8 million kilometers, I'd be tempted to use the term "distant encounter." That is something the Cassini project used internally for close enough to mention but not to make a big deal about. I'm not sure how commonly that phrase is. By the way, this is close enough to change the Tesla's orbit, but not by much. Fcrary (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I like "distant encounter". It seems asteroids passing by the Earth are worth a mention in the media when they pass closer than ~20 lunar distances. However, [List of asteroid close approaches to Earth] considers an approach "close" when the asteroid passes within 1 lunar distance. So I'd say "distant" is appropriate. But perhaps we should wait until a knowledgeable source qualifies the 2020 encounter. Jonathan McDowell tweeted that the encounter is "well outside Mars' gravitational sphere of influence".

About the encounter altering the trajectory, I still think it's too far to make an important effect (I mean, every body in the solar system perturbs the Roadster's orbit; it's a question of quantifying how big the effect it is). One can do a quick napkin calculation to estimate the size of the perturbation Mars represents compared to the pull of the Sun. Since the Roadster will be about 1.67 AU from the Sun at Mars encounter, the ratio of distances to Mars and to the Sun is on the order of 1.67 AU / 8 million km ~ 31, while the Sun-Mars mass ratio is 2e30 kg / 6.4e23 kg ~ 3e6 ... Since perturbations scale as ~M/r^3, the distance effect is on the order of 31^3 ~ 3e4, which is 100 times smaller than the mass effect. In other words, the perturbation of Mars at closest encounter represents a "1% effect" on the Roadster's trajectory. Big enough to be of note? Meithan (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I found one source that talks about the Mars "flyby", of course using the same JPL data as me! Nothing else is close at all. Roadster will make its closest approach to Mars in October of 2020, coming within 4.3 million miles, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at Harvard and spaceflight expert. The trajectory shows it goes over the north pole of Mars AND happens to be close to a Earth-Mars opposition as well! Tom Ruen (talk)

Yeah, I saw McDowell's tweet. He's also sourcing the ~7 million km figure from the JPL ephemeris. And he says "well outside Mars' gravitational sphere of influence", which I understand to mean it's definitely not a flyby, and that it's probably not even a "close encounter", as asteroids in "close encounters" with the Earth typically pass well within Earth's sphere of influence. I like Fcrary's suggestion of calling it a "distant encounter" at best. We could mention that it's the closest encounter until 2030, but still a distant one. Meithan (talk)

Distant encounter is fair description to me. If the inclination was closer to Mars it would be a lot closer. I made a chart of the conjunction as seen from earth, showing it is as far above the ecliptic as Mars is below. And JPL shows its peak magnitude is also there, around 25, possible to see! [4] Tom Ruen (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For a distance comparison I saw this today, close is apparently alway relative: "ZC16D6D is an Apollo-type asteroid with a diameter of 90-200 metres. It was first observed at Catalina Sky Survey on February 9th, and will make a close approach on February 14th, at a distance of 0.05 AU (7.2 million km) from Earth. Now it is observable at +17.4 mag and brightening." Tom Ruen (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a solution beyond Nasa's 2030 numeric integration. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• [5] Roadster JPL Sol#6. Close approaches. The 2047 approach to Earth looks fairly close. Nominal orbit has it brighten to 19.3 mag.
  • 2020-10-07 Mars: 0.049 AU (0.048/0.050)
  • 2035-04-22 Mars: 0.021 AU (0.004/0.038)
  • 2047-01-12 Earth: 0.030 AU (0.018/0.041)

dummy payload

This edit Special:Diff/825492769 removed the word "car" from the opening sentence of the WP:LEAD, and moved up "dummy payload"→"dummy payload, or 'boilerplate'" (scare quotes included), placing it in the very first sentence. —Sladen (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't ask a question here, but I'll infer what you mean. WP:OBVIOUS would have us make sure that Tesla Roadster (2008) tell us immediately what it is: it is an electric car, or specifically a BEV sports car. This article is not Tesla Roadster (2008) and it is not of the highest priority to say what a Tesla Roadster is. This article is about a car in space. Per WP:OBVIOUS, the "it" is this: they shot a Tesla Roadster into into space. Those who don't have the slightest clue what a Tesla Roadster is are only held in suspense until the second sentence, when we reveal the obvious, it is an electric car.

The other very critical fact, one that much of the public probably has never heard of, is the idea of dummy payloads, boilerplate. It's pretty critical to explain that something had to be shot into space. So that's why the facts are revealed in that order.

Oh, also, scare quotes are double quotation marks -- you're attributing, or ironically attributing, the words to others. Single quotes used this way merely highlight the introduction of a specialist term. See [6]. It's true there is controversy over quotation marks, and UK English isn't quite the same, but this article is in US English, naturally, and even if a reader interprets 'boilerplate' as scare quotes, it doesn't change the actual meaning very much. Boilerplate is the thing "they" (rocket scientists [don't @ me]) call it, which is the important part. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

Please amend the infobox, changing

| Orbit        = [[Heliocentric]]<br/> Perihelion: 0.98 AU<ref name="BGrayElements">[https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/02/theres-starman-waiting-in-sky.html There's a Starman Waiting in the Sky ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210065005/https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/02/theres-starman-waiting-in-sky.html |date=February 10, 2018 }} SatTrackCam Leiden (b)log. Retrieved February 8, 2018.</ref> <br/>Aphelion: 1.67 AU <br/>Inclination: 1.05° <br/>Orbital period: 1.53 year

to

| Orbit        = [[Heliocentric]]<br/> Perihelion: 0.98&nbsp;AU<ref name="BGrayElements">[https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/02/theres-starman-waiting-in-sky.html There's a Starman Waiting in the Sky] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210065005/https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/02/theres-starman-waiting-in-sky.html |date=February 10, 2018}} SatTrackCam Leiden (b)log. Retrieved February 8, 2018.</ref><br/>Aphelion: 1.70&nbsp;AU<ref name="SFN_rearview"/><br/>Inclination: 1.05°<br/>Orbital period: 1.53&nbsp;year

mainly to bring the aphelion in line with the rest of the article. Or, if the aphelion really is 1.67 AU, change all other instances in the article to match. nagualdesign 05:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

​Checked Horizons database, JPL's most recent estimate is 0.99 to 1.67 au. Also au should not be in capital letters. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, then let's swap out the reference and change all instances to 1.67 au. I never realized that au was lower-case! Thanks. nagualdesign 05:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

​Neither did I till I looked it up yesterday. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Edit fully-protected}}. Rather than write another I guess someone can swap out all the 1.70s and AUs when the dust has settled. nagualdesign 05:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, at the moment it is close enough to be considered rounding. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, what's 4.5 million kilometres between friends, eh? nagualdesign 05:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever amended the article. nagualdesign 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Future orbit and collision probabilities

The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets

On February 6th, 2018 SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster on a Mars-crossing orbit. We perform N-body simulations to determine the fate of the object over the next several million years, under the relevant perturbations acting on the orbit. The orbital evolution is initially dominated by close encounters with the Earth. The first close encounter with the Earth will occur in 2091. The repeated encounters lead to a random walk that eventually causes close encounters with other terrestrial planets and the Sun. Long-term integrations become highly sensitive to the initial conditions after several such close encounters. By running a large ensemble of simulations with slightly perturbed initial conditions, we estimate the probability of a collision with Earth and Venus over the next one million years to be 6% and 2.5%, respectively. We estimate the dynamical lifetime of the Tesla to be a few tens of millions of years.

Yes, it is quite relevant. Now we have to craft a condensed text. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/825640343 was the first attempt at adding a couple of sentences. —Sladen (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Timing section NPOV

Special:PermanentLink/825640343#Timing.

This section is a problem. The sourcing is weak and there is no actual discussion about timing. The timing could be completely meaningless. The section by its existence is making an unstated assumption that it was intentional and thus of importance, which no source supports. If it is purely coincidental there would be no reason to bring it up. The source from the Guardian is imparting two facts in the same sentence but is not drawing any connection between them, at best leaving it up to the reader to decide - or making no connection at all. That's fine for journalism but not Wikipedia, we don't imply things and leave them open-ended. Either we state clearly there was an intentional timing of launch with the earnings, or don't say anything about what could be a random event being improperly magnified into an entire section based on one journalist's brief sentence. -- GreenC 05:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not about the finances of Tesla Inc. A single sentence in the 'Reactions' about the implied publicity value is more than enough. I say we delete that POV entry. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It was added based on trying to guess what {{U|Dennis Bratland}} might be suggesting, combined with the expressed desire by Fcrary/nagualdesign that "Mr. Musk's statement about his own motives should be reported. And reported without spin. That way the readers can decide for themselves.". —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually that was just me quoting Fcrary, which I agreed with, and to my knowledge Musk hasn't mentioned that being his motivation. In the same section I also wrote, "At the risk of sounding like I'm on the Tesla/SpaceX payroll, I really don't think that this article is the place to talk about Tesla's quarterly losses." To which Dennis replied, "I agree we can leave out the quarterly losses". I don't think anybody wants to see Telsa's quarterly losses in the article. nagualdesign 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The timing section is not neutral so needs to go. I am removing it. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. nagualdesign 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sladen's rather extraordinary addition looks awfully WP:POINTy. Was the idea to create some kind of straw man to knock down? That sort of behavior is not acceptable. If you want to change the article in along the lines of what I have suggested, then follow the SpaceX claims as to the intent of using a car directly with the counter-claims by any of a dozen reputable sources that the purpose was marketing. You can easily see that is what I was suggesting by looking and my actual edits. The edit history shows me making those exact changes, and the same three guys expunging any mention of non-self-published points of view from the Objectives section. Adding this Timing section to the very bottom of the article looks very much like some kind of joke, and an example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Find some reputable third party sources equal in weight to the ones mentioned (BBC, NYT, AP, AdWeek, etc etc) who say that it was not intended as publicity stunt, and cite them in the Objectives section. Otherwise you're citing self-published sources alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add in the Objectives section that they did not include a cheeseburger, did not include a gold fish, it was not a racist rocket, and it was not meant to scare the surrounding wildlife. BatteryIncluded (talk) 2:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV in Objectives section

The Objectives section has been used as the exclusive province of SpaceX/Musk to make their claims about why they used a car for this. Normally this is undisputed: with a book or movie or other artwork, what it is is usually agreed. Critical response as to whether it's good or bad, or analysis of what it means is kept to the bottom of the article, after the work itself is simply described. A consumer product is usually presented the same way: describe what it is, then describe what the reaction was, how well it sold and the reviews. The Tesla Model X exists because Tesla wanted to enter the SUV market, because they make and sell cars. An exceptional case would be a real-life The Producers (1967 film) story: they produce a play, but the intent is not the same as any other play, not the stated intent. The real purpose is to lose money and keep the investors money.

The intention behind using a car as a dummy payload is disputed by the majority of reliable sources. That means this is not the same kind of article as a movie article or a car model article. SpaceX says they did it for one reason, and there is overwhelming evidence that industry experts and reliable media don't believe them. They aren't lying; it's not a scam, like The Producers or any kind of fake product. The media don't fault SpaceX and Musk for saying it's "just for fun", but saying that is still bullshit in the sense that it's rhetoric meant to enhance the real goal, which is advertising and public relations. It's not a bad thing: companies all do this and it's respectable. Ford and GM run cars in NASCAR to promote their brands, even though the entire thing is essentially bullshit too: the race cars are not even a little bit similar to the consumer products, but nobody blames them because that's not the point. It isn't pejorative to point out what experts say is the real intent behind shooting a car and not some concrete into space, any more than it's pejorative to say that car companies sponsor racing because they want to sell more cars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what precisely is the proposed edit that might improve this? —Sladen (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is that the Objectives section contains nothing but the official company line, then the solution is for it to not be a section devoted to the only the company's POV, excluding all others. Specifically the section asserts their claimed intentions, and that should be followed directly by the most significant counter-claims as to what their real intentions are. Criticisms about crass displays of wealth, space junk, or lost opportunities for astronomy are tangential, since they don't directly contradict the official claims, and they have far less weight than the simple view that it's a marketing move.

An alternative way to accomplish the same thing would be to move the claims than it's just for fun down to the section that has the counterclaims. In place of Objectives, just describe why test rockets have dummy payloads, summarizing boilerplate (spaceflight) per the summary style guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what exact proposed wording might help achieve the desired outcome? —Sladen (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording you see in the edit history? You've seen the edits, right? Are you under the impression that NPOV issues can't be discussed unless a precise text is proposed? That's not the case, and it's usually counterproductive because it turns into quibbling over exact wording instead of a discussion of the real point. The question is whether or not any direct counterpoint to the company's claims shall be allowed. The exact wording is left to editorial discretion, and will inevitably be changed bit by bit every day anyway. It's a waste of effort to find precise words that everyone likes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, yes, the article has many edits. Pin-pointing which particular edit/wording would help discussion. —Sladen (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ironically this gives undue legitimacy and undue weight to the minor points of view. The idea that it's an "art object", or that it's space junk, are not significant enough to be in the lead, and it's misleading to put them on equal footing with the much more significant coverage regarding marketing and advertising. The bit about reaadymade art comes from one blogger. The judgement that it's a marketing job cites a dozen sources, not merely The Verge or TechCrunch, but the NYT, Bloomberg, AdAge, AdWeek, The Economist, the BBC, Scientific Ameriacan, etc. There's a vast difference in seriousness between the major media and serous car and aerospace injustry watchers, and the blogosphere of minor web media like HuffPo or Wired. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what proposed sequence of words might work better? —Sladen (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop the hectoring. It's just obnoxious, and point|y. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, yes, it is in the hope of pin-pointing precisely what is being suggested, so that discussion can begin to take place. —Sladen (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I could find other sources for the Reception section so it's not so heavily weighted to this one marketing topic as currently, but then the reception section is too long and looks like a battlefield. The entire paragraph you added "Musk's public demonstrations.." should go because it's largely unsalvageable NPOV/OR text and the sources repeat what is already in the first paragraph - we get the point and don't need to be bludgeoned with repetition and sources. -- GreenC 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"We don't need to be bludgeoned"? Please read WP:WEIGHT again, if you haven't done so recently. The policy repeats five times the importance of sources in gauging what is a widely agreed consensus, and what is a minor point of view, and what is fringe. The difference in both quantity and quality between basically every responsible and serious source, and one blogger over at the Verge, is exactly what the policy wants us to focus on. As far as original research, are you saying you did in fact read each of the cited sources and find no evidence at all for the wording? "offbeat approach", "visionary marketer ", "deliberate control of both the timing and the content of stunts" etc. We can walk through the sources one by one if you're seriusly claiming that these things are not what the sources said, but it seems like a waste of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The marketing is given clear place of importance as the first item mentioned, and it needs to balance the need to summarize the section. The language of the previous was overtly opinionated. -- GreenC 05:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested this before, but what about, "Others have noted the publicity value of launching the Tesla, and suggested that this may be an unstated motive for this choice of a dummy payload." That's completely true (although we'd have to add references), and does not contain any judgmental language. Fcrary (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, any POVs outside the company would be less biased, but this still sounds very judgemental. Phrases like "unstated motive" have a much more sinister tone than just saying they "disregarded" the stream public messages from Musk on this topic. Saying "others" or "some" brings back the same weasel problem. "Industry observers" refers to the business press, major marketing publications, writers who cover the auto and aerospace industries, and the leading science publications. As opposed to The Verge or TechCrunch, minor web media known to be driven by clicks. One of the ways we avoid elevating low-value points of view (e.g. space junk, kessler events) is by not describing them on equal footing with major sources: "some say it's a marketing, others say it's found object art, and others say it's space junk that will destroy everything in orbit". "Some, and some and others" are vague and don't account for proportions, per WP:VALID. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Now do you see why people were asking about the exact phrasing your suggested additions? "Unstated motive" may imply something I didn't intend. Fine. But "disregarded the stream messages from Musk" isn't much better since it implies his statements are just propaganda. (Correct or not, that wouldn't be a neutral point of view.) "Industrial observers" would be fine, but only if you can reference an industrial observer. A story in Aviation Week would be an acceptable one, if you can find one that's specific on this detail.Fcrary (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The intention behind using a car as a dummy payload is disputed by the majority of reliable sources. Surely the only people qualified to comment on their own intentions are primary sources? nagualdesign 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, its very clear that there is a dedicated group of editors who have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value. Numerous high-quality sources say it's not that simple. Most of the sources -- not tabloids but the serious press -- say there is a direct connection between this media circus and they much less ballyhooed announcement on the very same day of Tesla's record-shattering $675.4 million quarterly loss. We're not even talking about mentioning that aspect.

So you do feel that if Musk says that's why he did it, his saying it makes it a fact? And you feel that anyone who says there were other reasons is disparaging him, rather than merely noting the usual way that public relations works? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Dennis Bratland}}, sounds reasonable to add the concrete suggestion of noting the launch was just before the Tesla quarterly results. Just need some suggested wording and cites to back it up. —Sladen (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Was also two days before publication of Jeremy Clarkson's review of the Tesla Model X.

That is WP:SYNTH (WP:OR) unless there is a source specifically drawing attention to these two things for some reason. -- GreenC 21:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rushe, Dominic (7 February 2018). "Elon Musk's Tesla announces biggest quarterly loss ever". The Guardian. tech billionaire Elon Musk sent one of his Tesla electric cars into space yesterday, a day before the company that built it announced its biggest ever quarterly loss. Just needs some suggested accompanying wording, which hopefully the proposer can suggest. —Sladen (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless a source draws attention to these two things??? I keep talking about being guided by sources and I keep getting the impression that you are not actually reading them. Because we don't have "a" source connecting these two things. We have dozens. Did you seriously not read any of the articles I cited? You have deleted content from this article at least a half dozen times, and the presumption we all make is that you actually clicked on the links and read the sources before you deleted anything. Is that true?

And outside that, right here on the talk page, two days ago I provided you with an Elon Musk quote that directly connects the Tesla quarterly report with this publicity stunt: "If we can send a Roadster to the asteroid belt, we can probably solve Model 3 production." Google says this quote has appeared in some 800+ news articles, and over 5,000 web hits. Here is the New York Times coverage.

Musk himself is not shy at all about admitting that this thing is an important public relations event, to boost both the image of SpaceX and Tesla, because he knows he isn't deceiving anyone; he's simply playing along as his fans expect. This article sounds like it was written by Batman fans who really believe Christian Bale is Batman. It's not disparaging an actor to point out what a good job he's doing at his role.

I'm not even asking to talk about Tesla's $771 million loss reported the day after the launch (what I just said above wasn't quite accurate). The paramount thing is to be responsive to sources. Treating the Verge and the NYT as equally serious is not neutral, and treating the company line as literally the truth is not neutral. Can we agree to carefully read the sources, and write accordingly? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So you do feel that if Musk says that's why he did it, his saying it makes it a fact? And you feel that anyone who says there were other reasons is disparaging him, rather than merely noting the usual way that public relations works? No, I'm not saying that that makes it fact. I'm simply saying that the only person/people qualified to comment on their own intentions are primary sources. If a secondary source begs to differ then we can present that as their opinion but they're not mind readers.

At the risk of sounding like I'm on the Tesla/SpaceX payroll, I really don't think that this article is the place to talk about Tesla's quarterly losses. nagualdesign 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So when a terrorist says "I'm not a terrorist, I'm a freedom fighter" or "I'm an artist" or "God told me to do it", nobody else is qualified to say "No, you're a terrorist"? There are many Featured Articles that contradict the stated motives of people with other, more reliable sources. I can walk you through the examples if you don't believe me. I agree we can leave out the quarterly losses, but that doesn't mean we have to disregard what the world is saying. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty flimsy straw man, Dennis, but to use your example, if a terrorist says he planted a bomb in the name of Allah then I think we can report that, yes. Or if a self-styled 'freedom fighter' commits atrocities and other people say it was the product of a warped mind then we can say what they think too. What we don't do is present such critics as omniscient. Simply put, for the third time, the only people qualified to comment on their own intentions are primary sources. Intent being an internal property of the mind of the intender. If it was a boardroom decision and we have sources that were in on the meetings then we could present that as such, but we don't. We just have the opinions of critics. Am I talking in a foreign language here? nagualdesign 22:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"...a dedicated group of editors who have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value..." I can't speak for other editors, but no. I think neutral point of view means that, regardless of what I, personally, believe, Mr. Musk's statement about his own motives should be reported. And reported without spin. That way the readers can decide for themselves.Fcrary (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the NPOV policy says. WP:ABOUTSELF item #1 "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" and #4: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". The official explanation from SpaceX is self-serving, and copious sources doubt it is quite the whole truth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Musk's statement about his own motives should be reported. And reported without spin. That way the readers can decide for themselves. I concur. And no, I don't have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value. nagualdesign 22:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, The article is not going to focus on the marketing value for Tesla Inc. as the only reaction; it is one of many perspectives and it does not merit deleting the others listed. Yes, the car has a marketing value, and that is already mentioned, but that is not going to hijack the bulk of the article, nor minimize the mechanical function (dummy weight) the car played for this launcher test. Musk's stated strategy is to not pay for marketing, it has always been so for his companies, and this is not the place to exalt/vilify his corporate management choices. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, what I meant is that we should write something along the lines of, "Musk says his intention was [whatever Musk said his intentions were]. [Someone else] wrote [whatever they wrote], while [someone else] wrote [whatever they wrote]." In other words, we just report what various people have said, without further comment or qualification. The insinuation that anyone bar Musk can possibly know his true motives is not very encyclopedic, but if someone said, "The reason he did it is because..." then we report that verbatim. Who is right or wrong is not our place to comment on. To be honest, all this talking in the abstract is rather pointless. It would be better to get some actual proposed wording if people want to debate it. nagualdesign 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you apply the obtuse definition of 'authenticity' as meaning nothing more than "Was Musk's Twitter account spoofed?", and do not even consider whether we have any responsibility to ask whether or not the self-published claims were entirely truthful, it is still certainly an extraordinary claim, and it's clearly self-serving.

Consider:

1. Near universal agreement among high quality (non-clickbait) media sources that the effect was to help sell Tesla cars
2. And that it distracted investors from Tesla's dire financial situation
3. And that it is highly improbable that the launch would happen within 24 hours of Tesla's quarterly report by mere chance
4. And that reliable sources agree this is an unprecedented new form of marketing and advertising
5. And reliable sources tell us that Musk carefully timed the announcement of his previous use of a wheel of cheese as ballast to happen soon after the Dragon rocket launch, but not too soon; he made sure the first news cycle had run and headlines covered only the launch
6. And Musk himself spoke on a conference call to investors and made a direct comparison between "our" (i.e. Tesla and SpaceX, two ostensibly different companies) to shoot a car all the way almost all the away to the asteroid belt

It is extraordinary to take at face value the supposition that it is not an intentional marketing move or publicity stunt, based on zero evidence other than self-published sources. None of the self-published sources even deny or contradict the near-universal consensus. The only reason this consensus is possibly in doubt is because the self-published from SpaceX sources did not explicitly confirm that it was done for marketing. It is entirely plausible that using a car is both "fun" and "silly" and also a savvy marketing stunt. Why can't it be both? The self-published sources affirm only the first part; the second part is partly suggested by Musk's words to investors, and is the consensus of our best sources.

It doesn't serve the self-interest of Musk, Tesla, or SpaceX to say out loud that "it was all a publicity stunt". They would never lie about it, and they don't need to. It's merely in their best interest not to confirm the fact. Thus it is both extraordinary and self-serving to let the company's self-published claims be recited at face value as if they are undisputed facts. The policy WP:ABOUTSELF requires that the claimed reasons for using a car be put in context, not left as a soapbox for SpaceX's official company line alone, excluding other points of view.

Can anyone tell me how many reliable sources have said "No, the mainstream media got this all wrong! They're all wrong for calling it intentional marketing and promotion. BBC, The Economist, NYT, WAPO, AP, SciAm, AdAge, AdWeek all wrong. All of them. It's just a bit of whimsical fun and the timing is totally accidental. They shot a car in space only because Elon Musk is a cool guy who DNGAF. No other motives! Perish the thought!" Can you cite anyone saying that? A small cadre of 3-4 Wikipedia editors are saying that, yes. But that's original research and soapboxing. If you could cite any sources who did say, then you wouldn't have whole swaths of this article with only one source of information, a self-published one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please could you just stick to making concrete suggestions? Cheers. nagualdesign 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I made several concrete suggestions in the form of actual edits to the article. You have seen them. Repetitively hectoring me with sladen's oddly specific demand is sonewalling.

You and three other editors have decided that the entire top half of the article is going to use one source, and only one source, and any other point of view is forbidden. It's a SpaceX soapbox. You can fix that by citing third party sources that share the single point of view that you four have decided to treat as "fact", while everything else gets shunted to the bottom of the article as mere "opinion". Cite a reputable, independent source who shares your opinion that this was merely a bit of fun and not a calculated publicity stunt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In case it escaped your attention I haven't personally been editing the article aside from minor edits here and there. Every time I open my watchlist the article has had a multitude of edits and I haven't been keeping up with them. I honestly don't know what specific edits you're talking about, and I have no wish to search the history for your edits any more than I wish to examine anyone else's. I come here, to the talk page, to engage in debate and offer my opinions, but the article itself I have had very little input to.

Despite your misgivings I am not stonewalling you, or hectoring you with Sladen's "oddly specific demand". I'm simply making my own request that you mention, here on the talk page, any specific edits so that we can specifically address them, and that request applied to other editors as well. The debate has become protracted to the point where I think several of us are probably talking at cross-purposes. nagualdesign 02:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX built the hardware, the plan, and performed the test. They certainly set their own goals. Calling them `primary sources` does not open Dennis the door to change that. The consensus in this Talk page (over multiple sections opened by Dennis) is that the reaction and opinions of experts and the press go into the corresponding section. We are done. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having just read it once more, the Objectives section looks fine to me. I think the {{POV section}} tag should be removed. nagualdesign 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 03:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Change article title?

I understand the WP convention that space mission pages are named for the payload, and the point that the roadster is, in Elon's own words, "the silliest thing we can imagine" as payload. Nevertheless, this article title makes the whole mission sound far more frivolous than it actually is. I'd suggest renaming the article "Falcon Heavy demo mission dummy payload" or similar. Any other suggestions/comments? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, WP:COMMONNAME? —Sladen (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sladen, could you clarify what aspect of that policy you think applies here? Are you suggesting that the existing title is the most common way that relevant sources refer to this payload? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, although not the ultimate answer, WP:GTEST / WP:GHITS may be a good sanity check for whether a proposed name change is likely to be more beneficial or accessible for readers:

• "elon musk's tesla roadster" -wikipedia: 81,500 hits
• "falcon heavy demo mission dummy payload": 1 hit (this talk page)
• "falcon heavy demo mission dummy payload" -wikipedia: 0 hits

Are there any other names that we could also test for consideration? —Sladen (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The Falcon Heavy has enough spinoff articles to add another one such as 'Falcon Heavy dummy payload' because it is so frivolous to the launch system and its development. If it was an actual boilerplate we would not be talking about it. I'm not convinced it needs a name change. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "falcon heavy dummy payload" -wikipedia: 1 hit (Reddit speculation)

—Sladen (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to eliminate non-space-related hits from the counts:

• "elon musk's tesla roadster" "falcon heavy" -wikipedia gives 20800 hits
• "tesla roadster" "falcon heavy" -wikipedia gives 275000 hits, so clearly there are lots of other variant expressions used to describe this vehicle. I'm not convinced that the current title is the most common. However, it doesn't seem that there's any real consensus for a change of name at this time. With a bit of luck, SpaceX will give the payload a proper name of some sort once it's been launched, rendering this discussion moot. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

See how the Government calls it. So would Modified Tesla Roadster (mass simulator) be a suitable title ? Hektor (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tesla Roadster" alone is not a description of this single car. It has more Google hits but it is not a suitable name here, for the same reason we don't move Space Shuttle Columbia (unique object) to Space Shuttle orbiter (type).

"Modified Tesla Roadster" is too general, and I don't think anyone would search for this term. The brackets wouldn't help either.

I think the current title is fine, unless SpaceX gives the object a unique name in the future. --mfb (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"tesla roadster mass simulator" has a non-zero number of hits (200), so is a possibility (but less well-known than the present name). —Sladen (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Permanentlink/824108476 included the "modified Tesla Roadster (mass simulator)" wording from the licence in MOS:BOLD form. This was removed in Special:Diff/824134305 (by BatteryIncluded). —Sladen (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The title is flippant and misleading. It's misleading because one would expect an article with this name to be about a car in the normal sense of a car -- as in it's life as a thing you drive around. Every other article titled similarly is about a car in the thing-you-drive-around sense. The title should be more evident as to what the article is actually about.
It's flippant because it seems (to me at least) to be trying to be cute with an in-joke. That is, that a reader needs inside knowledge to know what the article is really about and that the title is "coded". That's not cute. It's flippant and unencyclopedic. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

98.216.245.29, what name(s) would be better? —Sladen (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to add some weight to the "it's a good idea to improve the title" camp. Anything more accurate would probably reduce the flippancy factor at the same time. If the title suggests it's about a spacecraft and not a car, then a little bit of digression educating about orbits could be a little more justifiable. A number of names have been suggested already. The first alternate suggested "Falcon Heavy demo mission dummy payload" seemed pretty good, but whatever, as long as it's described as a spacecraft vs. as a car. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tesla Roadster Spacecraft"? 98.216.245.29 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you have not read above, the Tesla car is a car, and will remain a car whether you put it in the ocean, on a road, or in orbit. A camera or two won't make it a spacecraft, nor a dummy driver. Nor a guide to the galaxy in the glove compartment. Call this article whatever, but I will confront any name implying it is a spacecraft. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, "Tesla Roadster Space Payload" then. Whatever. But, "Mr. Wonderful's Wonderful Car" is misleading and unencyclopedically enamorous of our Mr. Wonderful. It's not what the article's about. The article is about a car being used as a space payload, which is notable. It's not about a car as itself doing ordinary (or even special) car-like things, as is too-easily inferred by the current title. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

After launch: Tesla car in orbit. Or something like that. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "tesla roadster spacecraft" -wikipedia (1 hit)
• "tesla roadster space payload" -wikipedia (0 hits)
• "mr. wonderful's wonderful car" -wikipedia (0 hits)
• "tesla car in orbit" -wikipedia (1,200 hits)

98.216.245.29, are there any other plausible suggestions? —Sladen (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Google "hits" are completely immaterial to deciding how to name an article. That's mind-bogglingly unencyclopedic. Let's not waste space here with any more of that. Please.  :-) 98.216.245.29 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Roadster is only half of it—we're completely forgetting about Starman in the title, which is what people remember and think about. It isn't even Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster anymore, but it is Starman's. I would suggest something like "Starman's Tesla Roadster" or "Starman and his Tesla Roadster" because those titles adequately describe the entity that is the work of art now floating through space. Keavon (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We should not be inventing a name here. Before it was sent up into space it was Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster and it has not been given another name since. It was a payload, but now it is not. Perhaps one of the official designations like COSPAR ID 2018-017A or SATCAT no. 43205, but do not just make up a name. In time a common name will result and we can move it then, until then we should leave it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Car year & other specs?

I have seen at least three different years claimed for this car: 2008, 2010, and 2018. I came here looking for a link to a more reliable source, but this article doesn't include this information or other specs about this Roadster. Would love to see basic specs added. 38.108.59.142 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

38.108.59.142, VIN is possibly 5YJRE1A34A1000686, but a cite has not yet been located. Perhaps a resident who knows their way around the public records system in California may be able to do some research. It will likely confirm that the car was "built" in Hethel, England (Lotus factory) and then air freighted into the US for "final assembly" by Tesla Motors. The reason this content is not in the article is because we are lacking citations sources. When cites are located, it can of course be added. —Sladen (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The vehicle that was launched was Elon's 2008 original Roadster. The picture on the page, is of his 2010 Roadster Sport. He still owns that, so not pertinent and misleading. Only Meme's use the year 2018 as a model year, since the Roadster is not produced anymore (since 2012) and will not until 2019, delivery 2020. 97.104.165.220 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A cite would be ideal. In the mean-time, …we can crosscheck with the Roadster Sport badge present during fairing encapsulation, and Musk's quote "So I wouldn't put anything of irreplaceable sentimental value on it.". And the paint colour. —Sladen (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@97.104.165.220: You have it backwards. Musk's original roadster (either VIN #001 or #004, depending on who you ask) was black. The red one that launched into space was likely his 2010 model with a VIN of #686. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Parody section

I added the following content:

Riding on the publicity, Škoda released a spoof video of a Škoda Superb on a journey to Mars (a village in central France), with an overlay resembling that used on SpaceX's webcasts and punctuated with references such as a message "Don't Panic, Elon" on the car's infotainment system.

This was subsequently moved to a separate subheading, simplified, then deleted with a comment to the effect that the parody is not notable. To a certain extent I have to agree; it is not particularly notable in its own right and the simplification was probably warranted. However, I think that the very existence of such an elaborate spoof video testifies as to the notability of the roadster in space and is thus worthy of note here. Comments? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is only the beginning of an wave that will grow with time. My suggestion is that you create an additional section: "In popular culture". See: WP:"In popular culture" content. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Have stuck it back (Special:Diff/825881213) under the sub-heading Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#In popular culture. —Sladen (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability does not limit article content. The policy is at WP:NOTEWORTHY. We have an entire section devoted to a blogger's random thoughts that it is readymade art, along with an offhand comment a guy on a local radio station made about Heavy Metal. The Skoda commercial represents an investment in time and money to create; the Verge and 101.1 "The Edge" radio banter costs nothing more than the time to type out someone's stream-of-consciousness. Nobody else wrote about the fact that the Verge wrote about readymade art. On the other hand, the Skoda ad drew a reaction from motor1.com, drivemag.com, autoveolution.com, and autoblog.com. These web sources are low on the food chain, yes, but then so is The Verge. They are nothing like the chorus of very high on the food chain sources that have something much different to say about this.

The professional business press and industry analysts devote time to studying data and collecting facts, and they write fact-checked edited articles for the major real journalism publications. When they talk about how this affects Musk's brands, his public image, and put it in the context of the companies' financial prospects, it's not stream-of-consciousness banter. It's real journalism. That difference is what tells us what determines due weight.

This point needs to be driven home because a small group of editors on this article are singularly focused on not paying any attention to WP:WEIGHT. The Verge commentary is given an arbitrarily large amount of attention, for no verifiable reasons. The ill-informed fears of space junk and such are given equal weight, even though many more sources are represented, and worst of all, the consensus of a far larger number of sources who are far more important than the odd news blogger here and there are also treated as about equal to that. "It is only the beginning of an wave that will grow with time" is just as arbitrary as "Bah, not notable, because I say so". Why are none of these judgements being made on the basis of the quality and quantity of sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, to clarify; is the suggestion being made to:

1. keep the "In popular culture" section
2. remove the "In popular culture" section
3. something else

—Sladen (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections says that this kind of dumping ground section should be integrated up into the context of the article, not thrown down at the bottom where nobody has to think much about it. The quantity of coverage is obviously greater than the Art topic, so it violates WP:WEIGHT to devote so much space to the art topic and so little to the Skoda ad. The Reactions section is just as much an In popular culture or Trivia dumping ground, by another name. You could re-title Reactions to Miscellaneous. The guideline says "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." The guideline goes on to say, "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." The Skoda content belongs up in the chronology, not at the bottom, and then after that is done, the rest of the dumping ground at the bottom should be integrated upwards into the main article.

Even if this structure is temporary, the due weight policy says that the quantity of attention given to the content under Marketing should be several times greater than Space debris, which, along with the Skoda ad, should be greater than art. A summary of Marketing deserves to be in the intro section, but none of the other lesser weight reactions.

A legitimate argument for some other proportioning and some other degree of prominence would cite sources and be based on their quality and quantity, not "because i say so". If your next question is going to be "But what exact wording would you like to see?" rest assured I won't reply. I just told you which edits I support: integrating the content up into the main article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Dennis Bratland}}, thanks for the clarification regarding "support: integrating the content up into the main article." This is useful to understand. Based on re-reading several of the discussions on this Talk; page, the integrated approach does not (appear to) to have gained consensus on this specific article. Expect editors may appreciate feedback/suggestions on how to better integrate material within the framework and structure that has evolved. —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you've decided as a group to stonewall, and for some reason you think this is a brilliant choice.

Have you noticed that the Marketing section contains irrelevant complaints about lost opportunities for science? The Space debris sections also contains these irrelevant comments about science, as well as unconnected complaints about crass displays of wealth. The reason these random bits of content are spread around is that Reactions is a misleading name for Miscellany or Trivia. As a stepping stone towards a better written article, it's fine. But to stonewall insisting that this is the ideal structure and to keep pushing every change back to this second-rate layout is not making any article better. None of you seem all that concerned for the poor writing in this part of the article, because it is, after all, the junk in the trunk. Who cares? It's where all the crap gets consigned.

So, yes, you and three other guys like it this way, but the broader consensus that it's poor layout has been expressed by many editors in WP:TRIVIA and WP:CSECTION and WP:WBA and elsewhere. A "dumping ground" section is a classic pitfall in article writing. Having four editors who like it does not change that and sooner or later it gets cleaned up and corrected. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dennis Bratland, there is no WP:CABAL of editors who "think this is a brilliant choice"; we are really all keen to improve the article for our readers. Poor writing can be improved one small edit at a time; I did rewrite some bits of the lede section today, and I moved some text to more appropriate sections. Certainly the comments on scientific "lost opportunities" could be grouped differently or given less weight. Please do not be discouraged, and help the article on its path to balanced and crisp coverage of this unique and popular artifact. — JFG ^talk 03:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Must admit this ad is fun af! Well done Skoda. — JFG ^talk 00:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Poetry

To lighten the mood: THE SPACE ROADSTER

Elon, you’ve lost one of your cherry cars.
We doubt you miss it, though, for Starman steers it,
piercing the emptiness en route to Mars
and the ring of rocks beyond. What flyer fears it,

the absolute of space? Not this fake pilot!
Its gaze is black as the gaps between the stars,
and yet the worlds and suns seem to beguile it.
Who would have thought that dummies in red cars

could zip into earth orbit and keep going?
They flabbergasted us, your booster rockets
which settled like a pair of sparrows (owing
to bang-up engineering). In your pockets

were all the funds you needed for a test
that bested your most hopeful expectations.
Now car and mannequin are on a quest
to beat our wildest visualizations

as earth recedes with all its blues and whites
as Mars grows closer with its browns and coppers
as space becomes spectacular with lights
as we audacious apes become star-hoppers.

By Martin Elster, a composer and serves as percussionist with the Hartford Symphony Orchestra.[7]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BatteryIncluded (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Orbital parameters

There's a still bit of inconsistency in the various orbital parameters reported in the article, specially the aphelion distance. We should pick a reference and stick to it.

I downloaded the Cartesian heliocentric positions of Earth, Mars and the Roadster from JPL Horizons and computed the trajectory's actual aphelion and perihelion distances (for the next passages) instead of obtaining them from the osculating elements. They come out as 0.9860 AU and 1.6638 AU. Should we use these? Meithan (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some better sourcing now but unless I misunderstood I don't think what you did would comply with WP:CALC anyway. 08:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't comply with WP:CALC. An alternative is to use the osculating elements directly output by Horizons, with the condition that they are taken after they've stabilized following Earth escape. A few weeks should do, apparently. This direct Horizons query returns the osculating elements between 2018-Feb-08 and 2018-Dec-08 in 1 month intervals. The aphelion distance ('AD' in the table) starts at 1.75 au but quickly stabilizes around 1.6639 au. This is using JPL's orbit solution #7, by the way, which was posted today.

I think we should use this value (rounded to 1.66 au perhaps) and cite Horizons directly using that query. I'm pinging Nagualdesign and Insertcleverphrasehere since they were recently involved in a change to the aphelion value (and this should be discussed here). –Meithan (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NASA JPL is still using .99 and ~1.67 in the horizons database. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for considering me, but my only contributions regarding the aphelion have been monkey-see-monkey-do edits where I made all the numbers the same, purely for consistency. I took the number that was referenced (at the time) and mentioned 3 times in the article and copied it into the infobox, along with the reference.

I have just altered the orbital diagram though, so that it matches the current (1.67 au) aphelion, and if you change the numbers drastically again someone's going to get a message with a stern looking emoji on the end! nagualdesign 03:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: yes, the JPL Horizons "object page" cites '~1.67 au' (emphasis on approximate), but the orbital elements consistently show an aphelion closer to 1.66 au for the rest of the year (including around the upcoming aphelion on Nov 9). I can settle for either value. However the article currently cites '1.68 au' in the text and '1.6779 AU' in the info box. –Meithan (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I've been warned ;).

But don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing over 1.66 vs 1.67 au (that difference is immaterial), but rather on choosing a stable reference for the orbital elements. I believe osculating elements from JPL Horizons after ~March is the way to go. If you guys don't oppose that, I'll go ahead and update all orbital elements and cite the direct query. And Nagualdesign, frankly I wouldn't re-upload the diagram; the change in aphelion is less than 0.01 au, which represents a difference in your diagram of a few pixels at full res and less than a pixel for the thumbnail. –Meithan (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've implemented the proposed changes to the orbital elements, with the new aphelion at 1.6639 au, and updated the text throughout. In the end I settled for JPL Horizons osculating elements at epoch 1 May 2018, as the elements are very stable (at the precision shown in the article) at that moment and going forward. The reference now points directly to the elements at this epoch. I propose this is used as the "standard" reference from now on, to be updated only when JPL publishes further solutions for the trajectory (which will be less frequent as the Roadster gets further away from Earth). PS: and Nagualdesign, I just don't think it's worthwhile to update the diagram for this tiny correction. –Meithan (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Meithan, that's very useful. I agree with your proposal to keep those elements as standard reference. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• Special:PermanentLink/825837267 showing {{Infobox spaceflight}} + long image caption
• Special:PermanentLink/825838047 showing {{Infobox spacecraft instrument}} + short image caption
• Special:PermanentLink/825749128 showing request/response about extra fields for {{Infobox spacecraft instrument}}
• Special:Diff/825838047, relevant diff/removal/revert under discussion

Yesterday JFG changed the infobox to {{infobox spacecraft}} {{infobox spaceflight}}, which displays orbital parameters well. The image caption was also changed to something useful. I see that BatteryIncluded has now reverted to using {{infobox spacecraft instrument}} with the reason being that this is not a spacecraft. While I agree with that reasoning, simply using a particular infobox (one that's actually useful) does not imply that the car itself is a spacecraft, and I think we should be using {{infobox spacecraft}} {{infobox spaceflight}} (and also change the caption back to JFG's last edit). The arguments over whether this article is about a spacecraft or not could actually be sidestepped by treating the first stage and Roadster as a single entity. nagualdesign 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that the Spaceflight/Spacecraft templates actually describe the object it as a spacecraft, displaying "Spacecraft description". We discussed the spacecraft status extensively in the talk page, with consensus on that, and that the article will not be called XYZ (spacecraft). Why should the template do what we agreed will not be? I don't mind which image you attach to it. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are mostly to give a brief summary, with the details left to the body of the article. Since the spacecraft infobox has more content, could we use it and add a footnote about what a spacecraft is? I also like the idea of listing it as the combined second stage and roadster. Between them, they collected and transmitted data, which is more than some early spacecraft did. Fcrary (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Guys, the correct infobox template is {{Infobox spaceflight}}, which documents a gazillion things that happen to have been launched into space. Not all of them are spacecraft. If there are certain elements that hint too much at this object being a "spacecraft", we can see how to remove them from view. Calling this a "spacecraft instrument" is woefully inadequate. I'm also not so sure about BatteryIncluded's assertion that we have consensus not to call this thing a spacecraft at all. Some editors have argued that a bunch of even more passive objects have been loosely called "spacecrafts" and nobody complained. What is the recently-launched Humanity Star for example? It is described as a "passive satellite" in the lead, and it sports a standard spaceflight infobox, which includes the title "Spacecraft properties" -- no big deal. This car is too polarizing for a simple cute payload. — JFG ^talk 23:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this subject as I am not going to war with any of the spaceflight regulars, who I came to respect over many years of work here. But am surprised to see some of you compromise your intellectual integrity and that of Wikipedia's by describing a dummy dead weight as a "spacecraft". We pulverized this horse to death, and evidently, some people still can't tell fantasy/desire from reality. The orbital parameters are already shown in the Instrument template, so it seems a very weak and sloppy excuse to say that the car was launched on a rocket, and a rocket is sort'a of a spacecraft, proof is they have cameras! Cameras! I think that Alice Gorman's comments (Art section) explains some of your reluctance to see the dead weight's physical function for what it is. Some see a marketing gimmick, some see art, some see junk, some see a spacecraft. You can't fight human nature, but you can be technically accurate, and honest. Your call. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit, describing the Roadster as a dummy payload, may help alleviate your concerns. — JFG ^talk 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The word "dummy" should be considered a skunked term for this entire article, and the other articles about the Falcon Heavy. There are plenty of alternative terms for both senses of "dummy" that using the word at all is unnecessary and requires over-explanation every time it's used. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "dummy" is by far the most commonly used term for this sort of thing, among people working in the field. "Boilerplate" is rarely used, and "test mass" isn't all that common either. If you're worried about confusion with the thing in the spacesuit, do we want to be obscure instead of ambiguous? Fcrary (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If we consistently use manequin to describe the 'passenger' and dummy payload to describe the car, it'll be fine. nagualdesign 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if we insist on using the word, then that convention is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether. But ballast, simulated mass, mass simulator, test mass, cargo, test cargo, simulated cargo, and boilerplate are all good options, so there's no reason to stubbornly cling to a potentially confusing word when we are not forced to do so. That's what skunked term means: just because, technically, you can it doesn't mean you should. If there were some evidence that we are losing information or forced into awkward sentences by avoiding the word, then you could justify it. But there is no argument of that kind. All downside, no upside. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with any one of those, as long as we stick to using only one. Test mass is a good option. nagualdesign 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions to amend the infobox contents

Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

The Roadster in a parking orbit, prior to departing into a heliocentric orbit
Names	SpaceX Roadster Starman
Mission type	Test flight
Operator	SpaceX
COSPAR ID	2018-017A
SATCAT no.	43205
Spacecraft properties
Spacecraft type	Tesla Roadster mounted to a Falcon Heavy second stage
Manufacturer	Tesla and SpaceX
Launch mass	~1,300 kg (2,900 lb)
Start of mission
Launch date	February 6, 2018 (2018-02-06), 20:45 (UTC)
Rocket	Falcon Heavy FH-001
Launch site	Kennedy LC-39A
Orbital parameters
Reference system	Heliocentric
Eccentricity	0.26185
Perihelion altitude	0.9861 AU
Aphelion altitude	1.6779 AU
Inclination	1.093°
Period	1.537 year
Epoch	11 February 2018

Sorry, I didn't spot the "Spacecraft description" as I was focussing on the orbital parameters. As per my suggestion then, how about something like this (right)? Note that the mass of the second-stage will have to be added. nagualdesign 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have applied it in part, by getting a bit long-winded in the "spacecraft type" field. I have not yet added SpaceX as a co-manufacturer, because the article is about the car, and SpaceX just built the rocket stage and the payload attach fitting (PAF), although we could also consider that the camera rigging of the car is a SpaceX manufacturing add-on. Without the cameras, we would have no pictures, and probably no article. Thoughts? — JFG ^talk 00:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that the car is permanently attached, the article could be amended in places to better reflect that they are a single entity. For example, when NASA/JPL talk about "2018-017A" they're really talking about the whole shebang, not just the car. I think a lot of laypeople will imagine the car being alone in space, as per the SpaceX animation. nagualdesign 00:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made a number of small changes to the infobox (right) for the sake of brevity. If nobody disagrees please add it to the article as is. It's an early night for me. Cheers. nagualdesign 01:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done + in light of remarks by other editors, I've used the wording "mass simulator". — JFG ^talk 01:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it Aphelion or Apohelion? Mars article uses Aphelion. Google auto-corrects to Aphelion though there are some uses of Apohelion. Is it different spelling for planets and spacecraft, a mistake, or both acceptable? crandles (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "aphelion". We need to code a special case in the template, because it takes an "apsis" suffix and builds the periapsis and apoapsis names from there, e.g. with suffix "-gee" we get "apogee" and "perigee", but with suffix "helion" the "o" must be elided when building "ap(o)helion". I'm a template editor, I'll look into it. — JFG ^talk 12:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted, crandles. nagualdesign 15:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done[8] — JFG ^talk 11:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources