Talk:Opportunity (rover)

FWIW - the very latest attempt to waken the Opportunity rover has just been reported (06:45pm/et/usa; 15 November 2018)^[1] - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

With the mission over, we should still be referring the rover itself in the present tense, it still exists (as best we know), just simply dead to any attempts to wake it. The mission is over, so its activities and the like can be declared past tense. --Masem (t) 22:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Masem, sounds good to me WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We should describe its last message. This was poignantly summarized by Scott Manley as My batteries are low, and it's getting dark. This is an epitaph that people can identify with, and will remember. Wikipedia should have the accurate version of this message for historical reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam1729 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added this, but the attribution is wrong, it came from Jacob Margolis. --Masem (t) 19:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The last status message was telemetry (numbers), including sunlight levels, battery charge, and temperature. I do not agree to anthropomorphy the rover (any rover) by dramatizing the data to craft a written message in the first person. While it is good PR for public outreach, it is not accurate nor encyclopedic. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I wish that the last message was mentioned in the article as it was and as it was spread. If Wikipedia doesn't mention what was actually sent people will keep thinking that Opportunity's last message really was "My batteries are low, and it's getting dark." 83.217.150.236 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2019 (UT

A way to approach this overall is that we should have a Legacy section, which starts by describing the more mainstream reaction to how successful Opportunity was, and then how the media reacted on it's "death", which at that point we can include that message (or at least, an interpretation of the stream of numbers). --Masem (t) 17:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The article already explains with info and charts that the last telemetry showed low light levels (opacity) and low battery charge. The Hollywood script on "My batteries are low, and it's getting dark" never happened. Regarding its "legacy", it is at Scientific information from the Mars Exploration Rover mission. - Rowan Forest (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that the press interpretation of that message has been given sufficient coverage to talk about it as part of a media response to the end of mission in a section fully separate from the technical mission specifics. --Masem (t) 18:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me add another reason because the way the press reported that, there's clearly editors that think Opp actually sent that sentence because the press is sloppy. Adding that as part of a legecy stressing that it a popular interpretation of that data should hopefully stop editors that think they are helping because of the press's poor reporting on that. --Masem (t) 01:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not oppose a section on "Tributes" or such. There it would be presented how the press relates to the vehicle and to its enormous success. That is the correct context, not the dramatized robot's telemetry as if an AI expired its "last words". Rowan Forest (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Dead Mars Rover Didn’t Actually Say That “My Battery” Thing." by Jon Christian, Futurism. -Rowan Forest (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the Last Words of NASA's Opportunity Rover Weren't 'My Battery Is Low and It's Getting Dark'. By Aristos Gregorgiou. Newsweek. -Rowan Forest (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It gives me the creeps it was scary to hear someone say that a robot talked or that someone thought it did what caused Opportunity to "die" R.I.P. Opportunity 50.106.91.66 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - More Last Words from the Opportunity Rover?^[3] (updated by the science reporter who posted the original tweet) (and even more last words)^[4] (and last image)^[1][2] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The 3rd para in this section starts 'More than 835 recovery commands were transmitted over the next 11 days, and over 1000 in the coming months, but no response was heard' - now since the last date mentioned in the text before this sentence is the 12th February 2019 and 11 days have not yet elapsed since that time, this cannot be correct, never mind '1000 more over the coming months'. Can someone who knows the story timeline set this straight? thanks Geopersona (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NASA's blogs are clear that it was 835 commands from June 2018 to around the end of January 2019, and 1000 before they called it. --Masem (t) 20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the unit of energy storage (or consumption) should be either the watt hour (symbol W h) or the watthour (symbol Wh). The former is based on SI conventions and the latter is the IEEE standard^[1]. I see no basis for "watt-hour". What am I missing? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have provided a reference but refuse to get dragged into a stupid edit war. Good day. Dondervogel 2 (talk)

watt-hour, per standard compound unit rules. Symbol is W·h. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we mention the rover's nickname, "Oppy," somewhere in the article? It seems to have become popular with the general public. The mention doesn't have to be front and center, necessarily. Marisauna (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a mention in the #Legacy section. Give your thoughts please. Marisauna (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)