Talk:Yutu (rover)

1976 or 1973 or 1972 or ...

The Wikipedia Home page says it was since 1976 that no one has landed on the Moon. The article says 1973. Which is it, if either? :) Adding: The BBC News link says since 1972. All-righty then. Misty MH (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done I've now clarified this in the lead. The last soft landing was in 1976, a Soviet mission that scooped up lunar soil and returned to Earth. The last lunar rover was 1973. No idea what the BBC is on about. Thanks for helping to get this straight! Jusdafax 05:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

1972 was of course the last human crewed moon landing Apollo 17. The relevance of to the rover I'm not sure but without knowing what link is being referred to perhaps it's mentioned in relation to the Chinese plans. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevance was the date: December 14. nagualdesign (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Image needs a fair use rationale for this article

File:Chang'e 3 lander and rover credit Beijing Institute of Spacecraft System Engineering.png is a fair use image that is used in this article. Fair use images require a rationale for every use to be put on the image description page, but there is not one for use in this article. If one is not added shortly then the image will need to be removed from the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Rovrchnmn2013.jpg vs File:Yutu.jpg

File:Yutu.jpg is higher quality (not pixelated), but File:Rovrchnmn2013.jpg claims to be public domain. Can we get the two sorted out? Chris857 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like Rovrchnmn2013.jpg has been speedily deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. --W. D. Graham 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Italicized name?

If Yutu is a rover of its own, then should it be italicized like Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity?

Separate Article?

Do we really have enough reliable sources to justify creating a separate article for the rover? It seems that the content here only duplicates the content of Chang'e 3. Geogene (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

At the moment: no. However, as in the case of the Mars rovers (Spirit, Opportunity and Curiosity), I think that people will like to extensively document the rover's activities and results. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Granted, it's early in the mission and we may have more rover-specific content later. But as for the Mars rovers, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity are all rover-only missions, in those cases there is no question as to whether the rover deserves a separate article. Pathfinder was a mission with a lander and rover phase, so Sojourner (rover) is a good model for what this article could be, notice that it deals almost entirely with a technical description of the rover itself. Note that although the Pathfinder mission is complete, the Yutu article is already longer than the Sojourner article and yet we have less information about Chang'e 3. Geogene (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Even for rover-only missions, we sometimes have separate articles for the mission as a whole and for the rover itself - for example Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity (rover). In my mind there is no question that the rover warrants its own article. --W. D. Graham 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Concur on separate articles. There will (quickly) be plenty on just this particular first-lunar-rover-in-forty-years rover. Note also that the Chang'e 3 article covers the launch, which was in and of itself a very notable event—as a Lunar launch by the Chinese space program—in the history of spaceflight. N2e (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I nod to the strong consensus for two articles. At some point well after the mission concludes, there can be a discussion of merging if the articles have not sufficiently diverged. Geogene (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass of the rover?

In this article it says 140 not 120 kilo, whats correct http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Most_Change_3_science_tools_activated_999.html Alexmcfire (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Earlier sources said 120. Latest sources say 140. I suspect the latter to be true. nagualdesign (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Did anybody notice...

I realize this is original research, so I have no intention of mentioning it in the article, but did anyone notice that Yutu has effectively drawn the CLEP insignia on the Moon? Compare the insignia with this map of Yutu's first 'campaign'. Okay, so there was a little bit of hazard avoidance from point C to point D, but the original plan to drive in a semi-circular route (ie, crescent) with the lander in the centre (like the footprints in the insignia) certainly shows some similarities. They even made a 'blob' at point A by doing a doughnut! I'm sure that the principles of Chinese calligraphy aren't lost on the CNSA; after all, they chose the insignia to convey meaning. I'm curious to know the significance of the brushstroke, and how that relates to the Chang'e missions. Interesting, no? Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

She's dead Jim.

Looks like the rover's panel failed to close during the 2nd Lunar night and she froze to death. 69.246.141.209 (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

69.246.141.209 No, it was immobile, but apparently it didn't stop transmitting till some time in March 2015. 220 of ^Borg 12:22, 2 October 2015‎

China copies USA.

It is sad to see a paragraph mentioning that China copies USA Moon Rovers. I know that this is 'common knowledge' in America, but it is simply not true. Of course the Yutu rover looks like previous rovers, and of course the wheels resemble wheels from previous (American) rovers, but how can they be different ? It is the same Moon as 40 years ago, with the same environment. The antennas will always be parabolic and on the top of the rover, the rover will always be heated during the 14-day night, ... Moon rovers will always resemble other moon rovers!

China is doing great science there, and they are doing it on their own (or at least as much on their own as the USA did 40 years ago by copying Russian rover designs, German Rocket designs and British radar technology).

(also apologies if this is not the place to say this, I have a lot of work and I am not native English)

cheers, paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobbaut (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments above are logical. However, the standard of truth here is what can be documented by reliable sources. The statements/opinions about China "copying" the US appear to have been reliably sourced. Why were they blanked from the article? The "offending" passage follows:

"It has been alleged that pieces of Yutu's design and several of its experiments were either "copied" or heavily borrowed from the American Mars Exploration Rovers.[17][18] Its wheel design is believed to have been considerably influenced by what was used on the Russian Lunokhod 1 rover.[18]" (struck from article by two different editors)

Blanking is discouraged. Perhaps a more agreeable wording could be found? Geogene (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, better wording should be found. In order to be consistent with WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not take sides, or overrepresent one side, in these sorts of jingoistic debates. Heck, all human technology is based, to greater or lesser extents, on what has been done before. The term "copy" carries with it a POV. Every engineering endeavor uses technologies that have gone before, and then typically extends (or attempts to extend) them in some way. Thus, all engineering consists of both imitation and innovation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Geogene (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Too early to decalare dead, due to the information contradiction in the same BBC article.

The recent update decalres Yutu is dead, and the reference is a news from BBC. But when you read the news carefully, you can easily find that it contains two contradictive descriptions in the very same article. The title says Yutu is dead, but the content gives another information that Yutu has been awaken but is still malfunctional.

This means, the guys at BBC release this thing when they are not sure yet. How can this be a news? How can this be a reliable reference?

I suggest to remove the statement "Yutu is dead" from the main article for now - the BBC reference is not reliable for now - until the medias are all sure about what really happened.

Greeneese (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe BBC attempted to update its news article, but could not update the title. Thank you for your editing. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This article from yesterday states that it is not dead. At least I think it does: http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2014/02/13/3011991.html --LasseFolkersen (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Lassefolkersen, BatteryIncluded, and Greeneese: I mentioned this above at "She's dead Jim." but apparently it is now dead since an undefined time in March 2015. I have updated, a bit roughly, this page and Chang'e 3. Some neatening up by someone a bit more conversant with the program is probably needed.220 of ^Borg 12:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

References

According to the go-taikonauts magazine the Yutu rover is still transmitting signals (received by radio amateurs) in September 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobbaut (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, amateur radio operators have detected the Yutu carrier signal. https://twitter.com/uhf_satcom/status/658389956575023105. Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

trans_title

For the references with foreign language (i.e. Chinese) titles, I have added |language=Chinese run those titles through Google Translate and added their English translation to |trans_title= in each case. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I think those references' titles needed that badly. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Too many sections

The rover's transmision quit on the thrird lunar day and since then, it has been doing the same observations while on the same spot. I think the sections between 4th and 8th lunar day should be joined in one because its status is the same. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140114045936/http://www.nbcnews.com/science/chinese-moon-lander-rover-wake-after-weeks-sleep-2D11909188 to http://www.nbcnews.com/science/chinese-moon-lander-rover-wake-after-weeks-sleep-2D11909188
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413123942/https://www.authintmail.com/article/science-environment/solar-eclipse-moon to https://www.authintmail.com/article/science-environment/solar-eclipse-moon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218121731/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-12/18/c_132977079.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-12/18/c_132977079.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224053039/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-12/20/c_125893854.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-12/20/c_125893854.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yutu 1 and 2

This article talks almost exclusively about Yutu 1, and yet is the article for both rovers. Should there be a separate section in this article about Yutu 2 (landed Jan 2019) or a separate article entirely? Starsandwhales (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)