Talk:Jason-3

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parker.hopkins, Sonal Marfatia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 14 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blakemcclain, Mitchell Ramba, Elizabeth K Demers, Williamkopper.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo of landing explosion

A few photos of the hard landing would be good -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

https://imgur.com/a/WMmFd has some photos of the wreckage aboard Just Read the Instructions when it made port -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of launch page Falcon 9 Flight 21

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge. — JFG ^talk 03:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Per longstanding spaceflight tradition, I suggest to merge the page about the launch with the page about the payload. This launch was particularly notable because of the rocket's successful first-stage landing, however there is not much material to justify a separate page. Moreover, there is already a lot of redundancy between the payload page talking about the launch and vice versa. See also discussion on a similar case at Talk:SpaceX CRS-8#Rfc: Should we have a separate page for the launch or keep it with the payload? including additional arguments about the general case. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Calling page creator @Brickmack:, contributors @Arado: @N2e: @Huntster: @Neo-Jay: @SkywalkerPL: and regular spaceflight and Falcon editors @Appable: @C-randles: @Abul Bakhtiar: @PSR B1937+21: @BatteryIncluded: @Galactic Penguin SST: @Kubanczyk: @Zedshort: @The Anome: for comments.

• Support as nom. The flight 21 page looks interesting but has no potential to grow. Substantive text about the flight itself consists of a paragraph on RTF considerations and a section on the landing attempt. This is in turn a mix of information readily available at the SpaceX R&D page and recentist coverage which could very well be summed up and merged here. As the Jason-3 observatory returns science data over a decade, there will certainly be material to expand coverage, whereas once the rocket has been launched and the booster has broken its leg upon landing, there will hardly ever be anything more to say. (Coverage of the landing is admittedly quite funny as the article text sources a statement copied verbatim from an Elon tweet by quoting the Washington Post which quotes the same tweet, adding instagram and SpaceX tweets as further "sources", ending up with 6 references to describe the broken leg incident — amusing yes, encyclopedic no.) — JFG ^talk 06:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as was said, the flight article has no upward growth potential, so merge into this article. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree, While the flight article does not have room to grow, I think the payload and the flight are different topics so should keep their separate articles. Note the discussion of Flight 21 has not resulted in a merge. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment ..."successful first-stage landing"? I think you're mistaking this for the Orbcom flight. This booster smashed flat on its side into the drone ship OCISLY. — Gopher65_talk 04:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it landed alright, then broke a leg. — JFG ^talk 03:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support —PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jason-3. 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/20160310102445/http://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Satellites/FutureSatellites/CopernicusSatellites/Jason3/index.html to http://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Satellites/FutureSatellites/CopernicusSatellites/Jason3/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy problems with Jason data

Differences between data series can overestimate rise by more than 1.7x or the old measurements are erroneous. Looking at the raw data series, Jason-2 data when overlapped with Jason-3 data a 4.6 mm rise (timestamp 2016.1438 to 2016.7411) becomes 8 mm over about the same 8 months. See "slr_sla_gbl_keep_all_66.csv" download from that page viewed 2020-01-13.

A larger gap can be seen in graphs aligning Jason-1 with previous TOPEX. It was reported elsewhere, Satellite altimeters were adjusted upto 750 mm to calibrate after launches and accuracy can still vary +/- 27 mm. Are we trying to measure the height of a finger with a half-metre length rod from 1336km away? Further adjustments are made based on geoid changes and seasonal cycles. The true error range must be large despite the smoothing. I'll add more references to this later. tygrus (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

References