Talk:LADEE

Laser data transfer

A comment was raised on the laser data transfer {compared to what? Also, is the six times a limitation of the optical lasercomm technology, or merely the data rate that was chosen for this particular instantiation/test of the technology?}. Not sure how to change article to improve it without getting overly complicated. The short answer is '6 times the data transfer of the traditional comms module in LADEE' but as the technology is untested the actual rate of data return is unknown and I have no information if the sizes/mass of the two units are comparable so an arbitrary number doesn't tell the whole story, still I feel it is helpful to give an indication as to the order of magnitude difference in potential data transfer. If anyone has any ideas of how to word the article better please give it a go! Markh89 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was only able to find that the laser data rate is about 5x that of radio frequency communications currently in use. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mission cost

Could we get some basic cost figures? Spacecraft? Mission? Support? Leptus Froggi (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the total cost only ($280 million). BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

NASA data with the line items for various programs is generally fairly public, but can be arduous to find and wade through. I would expect that, if you look in the detailed NASA budgets, you'll find line items in both Ames Research Center (op center to actually "fly" the spacecraft fairly accurately during the Lunar checkout and science mission) and for Goddard (money to pay for the Principal Investigator and other scientists involved in the science aspects of the three dust-related instruments). There may be money at another NASA Center for the lasercomm flight demonstration experiment. Good researching. N2e (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

undefined definite articles

The second objective "Determine if the Apollo astronaut sightings of diffuse emission at tens of kilometers above the surface were sodium glow or dust" refers to two things, "sightings" and "surface", that are not previously brought up in the text of the article and therefore makes little sense to the reader. I can assume the surface means the lunar surface, but would prefer someone who is familiar with the topic to correct this in case I'm off the mark. I've checked the reference provided, but the article cited has similar problems. Some help? Dkreisst (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am starting to work on that by creating a related sub-section. Please feel free to move, edit or change its title. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Results

Although the flight ended, the data is being analyzed. I was thinking that it would be really useful if we keep an eye open in Google Scholar for the results of the mission. That would enrich this article significantly. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Crash

I read this entire article hoping to find out why they purposefully crashed it, but no luck. Why did they want it to crash? Seems like a waste of money... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe it was simply out of fuel and had completed its mission. A controlled crash is preferrable to it crashing randomly, which is what would have happened sooner or later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thaddeus is correct. Rather than risk the vehicle crashing into a U.S. or Soviet historical site, it was intentionally crashed on the far side of the room. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, per the rationale provided by nominator; and absence of oppose. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer → LADEE – In line with the naming conventions for spacecraft on Wikipedia. There is no disambiguation for the all-caps "LADEE" name. The existing link is, in fact, a redirect to this article. Other examples of this naming convention include LCROSS, MESSENGER, STEREO, SMART-1, and NEAR Shoemaker. WP:COMMONNAME is also applicable in this circumstance, as "LADEE" is referenced as the mission's name more than its full title. NASA never uses its full title outside a lead sentence, opting to use the acronym to refer to the spacecraft frequently in press releases (Examples 1, 2, 3), and the official NASA Solar System Exploration entry for the mission is "LADEE". In addition, news coverage also extensively uses the "LADEE" name (Examples 1, 2). – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I know this will probably have no bearing on the outcome here, but I really dislike the trend to use acronyms as titles, in part because I feel it dilutes the use of proper naming, and in even larger part because leading an article with an acronym rather than the proper name looks awkward as hell (which would technically be demanded by MOS:FIRST). — Huntster (t @ c) 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

For most space missions, the acronym is the popular name, as well as the most memorable. Maybe this is a subject for discussion at the Spaceflight Project Talk page? BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 Comment: As an uninvolved party, I think Spaceflight Project Talk page, or some other related wikiproject would be the best venue to get opinions of editors from the particular field. But usually the bot places a move request notification on the talkpages of wikiproject. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed split out of Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration

Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration could be expanded a lot, and a separate article can have a short description template. - Rod57 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support splitting per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done - Rod57 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)