Talk:Deep Space Climate Observatory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lucycamuti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cost of storage

Can we get a citation on the cost of storage please?

23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: "The agency also will have to spend another $1 million per year to keep the satellite in a clean and sealed environment until launch."

However, I have removed the $1M/year figure based on this more recent quote: "Cole said earlier reports pegging the cost of DSCOVR's storage in a space age warehouse at $1 million per year were inaccurate. The real cost was closer to several thousand dollars per year, according to Cole."

NeilFraser (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

STEREO ?

Why is STEREO listed under "See Also"? I've worked on STEREO for years and I know of NO connection between the two missions

--Gary Heiligman, 19 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.110.211 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that it's grouped with STEREO since they're both solar observatories. DSCOVR is now being considered a possible ACE replacement. I suppose I should add ACE to the "see also" section.Giantnegro (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Barometer metaphor?

The article shouldn't use such a flowery language. What is meant by "This data could constitute a barometer for the process of global warming" ? What would be measured isn't really the right albedo for Earth's radiative balance (it's the geometric albedo, while the Bond albedo would be needed). Icek (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Expand the article?

The Deep Space Climate Observatory (aka DSCOVR) project was originally submitted by Francisco P.J. Valero.

Francisco P.J. Valero "led DSCOVER's design team."

"NOAA is interested in how the sun damages electronic equipment on Earth. It wants to equip DSCOVR with a coronagraph."

The article explains a lot of back story about the satellite and potential changes to the project from its original intent. As such, I submit these excepts and sources for potential expansion of the article.

Cwtrex (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems

In no particular order: 1. Feb 6, 2015 NPR has a article about this and its history by Joe Palca. 2.You should add a disambiguation under "Discover", since I couldn't locate this article based on its name's sound. 3.There's no discussion of the resolution of images that will be transmitted (and available as streaming). 4.This article claims that the Earth emits sunlight! Wow. (and confuses albedo with emission, it needs the care of someone who understands the difference.173.189.73.232 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• No. 2 has been as you requested for over two years now. Take another look. N2e (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Deep Space Climate Observatory - Fixed

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Deep Space Climate Observatory's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nsf20141217":

• From SpaceX reusable launch system development program: Bergin, Chris (2014-12-17). "SpaceX confirms CRS-5 launch slip to January 6". NASASpaceFlight.com. Retrieved 2014-12-24.
• From SpaceX CRS-5: Bergin, Chris (17 December 2014). "SpaceX confirms CRS-5 launch slip to January 6". NASASpaceFlight.com. Retrieved 2014-12-18.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Fixed by N2e (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Orbit around L1 and how it got there

The DSCOVR spacecraft will be orbiting the L₁ Lagrange point in a six-month orbit, with it's Sun-Earth angle moving to as close as 4 degrees, and as far as 15 degrees, from the true Sun-Earth line. That statement was just made in the NASA TV webcast of the launch, approximately 1 hour 30 mins. prior to the scheduled launch. It would be better to find a print-media secondary source, rather than rely on the primary source of NASA to put this in the article. N2e (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The initial insertion orbit of the spacecraft by the Falcon 9 second stage is a highly-elliptical Earth orbit of 187 km x 1371156 km at 37.03 degrees inclination. It is the spacecraft's responsibility to ease it out of Earth orbit and get it to L1, which as I understand it, is a process of over three months. Still looking for a good source for all of this. N2e (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@N2e: It would be great to have a source for that, and details of DSCOVR's propulsion module (chemical,and/or ion thruster), and how much kg propellant was to reach L1, and how much kg to maintain orbit around L1, and for how long. - Rod57 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The little satellite that could 2021 has diagram eg. showing 145kg of N2H4 propellant. - Rod57 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Trajectory to get to and remain at L1?

Has anyone seen a source that describes what the spacecraft will be doing during the next several months while it "travels" to L1? N2e (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything specific, but the low energy trajectories usually involve slowly spiraling out to L1 over a period of several months or years. — Gopher65_talk 01:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• @N2e: It used chemical (N2H4) propulsion, presumably in multiple perigee-raising burns. The highly elliptical orbit [you said above] it was released into might have a period of several weeks. - Rod57 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Post-launch section

I'm wondering how relevant the post-launch section is to the topic at hand. It describes what is really an entirely different subject: Space-X's desire to land a rocket after launch so that it can be reused. In addition, it is written in what I would call brain-bending prose. I lost many neurons trying to grok the last sentence. 198.58.169.14 (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since there is a redirect from Falcon 9 Flight 15 to this article, I think the post-launch section is relevant to describing the flight. Of course, others might have a different opinion. As for the post-launch section prose, it isn't written quite up to standards. I'll try to copy-edit it some. Feel free to also edit it if you want! Appable (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

An inconvenient sequel

Al Gore was mentioned earlier in the article for initiating this project. Here is a film where he elaborates on his thoughts and rationale for trying to move forward with this, the set backs and delays and the eventual launch. A revert was made, I believe the rationale for the revert was WP:undue and relevance. In order to be relevant it need not be the majority of film time, nor need it be included in the respective Wikipedia article. Had this been a brief mention on a Simpsons episode or fictional movie, undue weight may apply, however even this, I have seen a number of articles where this is included in the article, often under the category "In pop culture".Dig _deeper ^talk 15:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I can accept that...thank you. I have, however, replaced the citation with one that actually discusses how DSCOVR is covered in the film. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "the United States' first operational deep space satellite"

I removed Kaor1311's recent edit that DSCOVR was "the United States' first operational deep space satellite". Although this statement can be found in a few places on the ordinarily reliable noaa.gov and nasa.gov, it is quite wrong. See the Genesis mission more than a decade earlier, which was also an operational spacecraft at Sun-Earth L1.

An acknowledgment, of sorts, of this error can be found at [1]. The original headline, as still reflected in the URL, was "Nation's First Operational Satellite in Deep Space Reaches Final Orbit", but within a couple weeks after publication the headline was changed to match the lesser, correct claim in the body of the article, that DSCOVR is merely the NOAA's first operational satellite in deep space.

A detailed history source

The little satellite that could (part 2): from Triana to DSCOVR to orbit D.A.Day has lots of detail with references. Further reading at least ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

and links to The little satellite that could 2021 which has diagram eg. showing 145kg of N2H4 propellant. - Rod57 (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)