User talk:Huntster/Archive 18

PIA25211: Mars Atmosphere Density Model

A few minutes ago I realized that I was too late with what I planned as an upload request: our colleague Chinakpradhan was the first to upload his Mars Atmosphere Density Model.jpg. Thus the following is NOT an urgent job but rather an issue for the possible future improving.

This is the worst JPG from JPL I've ever seen before)). Usually I improve such files and load their refurbished versions in PNG. Here are the fields I've already prepared for such file:

• Source: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA25211
• Caption: The Mars atmosphere density model for the Jezero crater
• Description: Models for the seasonal variation in atmospheric density on Mars between summer (low density) and winter (higher density) predict that air density will be high enough in late March for NASA's Mars Ingenuity Helicopter to return to its original RPM. Since September, the helicopter's rotors have been operating an increased RPM of 2,700 – up from 2,537 RPM during Ingenuity's first 13 flights. The Ingenuity team will use observations from Perseverance's weather station, MEDA, to confirm the true air density on Mars before making the change.
• Date: 2022-04-05
• Author: NASA/JPL-Caltech
• Name for Commons: Mars Atmosphere Density Model (PIA25211).png
• Categories: same as in Mars Atmosphere Density Model.jpg
• + PIA template

As soon as the version of Chinakpradhan (JPG) already exists: does it make sense for me to continue with my work upon this image to be uploaded as a separate PNG version (slightly cropped with reverse-engineered text, reduced to the 256-color PNG), alongside with C.’s one, as its version?

Sincerely, — anonym 95.29.43.127 10:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You can do @95.29.43.127 my work is to update wiki not encourage ineffective less correct work. Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bad graphic, primarily because they mislabeled "Aug/Sept 2021" as "Aug/Sept 2022". Otherwise it's just a screenshot of whatever software they're using to graph atmospheric max/min over time. I've tidied up the existing description page text and categories.

I would suggest not worrying about uploading a separate PNG for the update, and just upload a maximum-resolution JPG over the current version so long as the image remains substantially the same (i.e., just fixing errors and such). Note that Chinak's source is preferred as a base compared with the Photojournal, which overcompresses everything to terrible quality (and I've never understood why, in this day and age). — Huntster (t @ c) 17:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! — anonym 95.29.45.131 01:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Mars Helicopter Base Station

Hi Huntster! What are the license perspectives of pictures from this PDF, presumably NASA/JPL-CalTech? Sorry, the host directory is unknown. Objects of my interest are on the unnumbered pages 10 and 9. — thank you, — 95.29.45.131 02:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, I'd completely forgotten about a specific copyright for JPL material: {{JPL Image Copyright}}. There are a lot of images on Commons that need to be converted to that template. Sigh.

While it is possible that whatever you're looking for in that PDF would fall under the JPL license (and the main page for that PDF is https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/handle/2014/51998 btw), I cannot be certain that those images haven't been taken by someone other than Mr. Canham, and might have been taken by another company or subcontractor entirely, so I'm not quite comfortable saying they are okay to upload to Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for comments. I'd have some furter questions, but at this time ask only one. Could you explain the disclaimer I read at thelink you kindly provided: Items in TRS are protected by copyright, but are furnished with U.S. government purpose use rights.. - anonym 92.100.192.48 02:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Per https://disa.mil/about/legal-and-regulatory/datarights-ip/datarights:

A “Government Purpose rights” license means the rights to use, modify, reproduce, release or disclose the technical data or computer software within the Government without restriction and outside the Government for a Government purpose – “any activity in which the United States Government is a party, including cooperative agreements with international or multi-national defense organizations or sales or transfers by the United States Government to foreign governments or international organizations. Government purposes include competitive procurement, but do not include use for commercial purposes.”

A Government purpose license remains in effect for 5 years unless the parties negotiate a different period. Upon expiration of the five-year term or other negotiated period, the Government shall have an “unlimited rights” license in the noncommercial technical data or noncommercial computer software.

Here's also the specific law dealing with it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/227.7203-5 — Huntster (t @ c) 02:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Another helicopter

Hi, Huntster! I bet you've never seen this miracle of engineering before! I think it deserves its place in History of helicopters side-by-side with the image I kindly propose you to rename

Рисунок к статье «Геликоптер». Военная энциклопедия Сытина (Санкт-Петербург, 1911-1915).jpg → Helicopter of Capt. Antonov. Russia, Petersburg, 1911.jpg

Note: years '1911-1915' in the existing name are irrelevant to the helicopter - this is the years' span of the 'Military encyclopedia' volumes, available at Wikisource.

The actual location of the image is here.

Date image taken - before 1911 (vol. of the Encyclopedia dated 1912). Maybe converting to PNG could improve the result.

I'm ready to help you with the translation of the pages you find necessary for yourself. - 78.106.207.84 09:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) - anonym 78.106.207.84 09:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

C, we try to not change the original language of the title. Would "Вертолёт капитана К. Антонова Санкт-Петербург, Россия, до 1911 года.jpg" be an okay translation?

I do seem to recall seeing this helicopter, or at least something very similar, in an old Civil Air Patrol textbook I used to have. Interesting concept, but doomed to fail with over-complicated rotors and too little engine power.

I've uploaded the suggested image to File:Capt. K. A. Antonov's helicopter, circa 1910.jpg. See if everything looks okay to you there. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, translation is OK! It's a pity that previously uploaded file shall not be renamed remaining unknown by name - maybe there's a way to create the inner link between two images with some template like 'alternate view'?

On my side I continue my efforts to geoposition both images at 'pastvu.com' (one of my long-time hobbies is to restore the azimuths in old views of SPb). It's too hard for the industrial areas; BTW we failed with the photo of my great-grandfather in 1920-es which was mercilessly deleted from Commons after many years of display making me to say good-bye to Wiki).

Re: technical: IMHO Capt. Antonov did not investigate thouroughly the aerodynamic of the vertical lift on a scaled model. Otherwise he could conclude that adding extra blades does not provide the linear increase of thrust thus degrading the overall performance.

Meanwhile every new day decreases the hopes for flight #29 on Mars. Two months ago everybody were amazed and encouraged with a suddenly 'discovered' capability to expand the communications' range 1.5 times over the official limit! But now the efforts to overcome the thermal limits of cells' charging seem unfruitful. Best regards, — anonym 78.106.206.24 00:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've renamed the first file to Вертолёт капитана К. Антонова Санкт-Петербург, Россия, до 1911 года.jpg. It would be great if you could contribute more detailed descriptions to both images, as I could only find limited information. If we could come up with a proper "name" for this helicopter, even if purely descriptive in nature, I could create a category to specifically house them. I'm open to suggestions.

As for Ingenuity, it's time indeed may have come, but we can only hold hope that the engineers figure out a way to keep it moving. And, even if they don't, it's performed marvelously so far and the team has a lot to be proud about. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I shall do as I promised. I hope it shall take me a week to recover...consequences of a common cold were uncommon for me((. I feel tired and exhausted from February 24 like many people of my age and experience. No inspiration to work just now. - anonym 92.100.205.184 14:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

EXIF

Hi! If I may: can you please delete the first version of this file? It seems I've forgot about the EXIF again before uploading. Many thanks! Gikü (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! Forgive me, I may be missing the obvious, but the first version of File:Ioan-Aurel Pop - oct 2018.jpg is already revdel'd. I've fully deleted it, but were you needing something else done? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding: under the "this file" link above I've indicated File:Marcel Spatari - apr 2022.jpg. There was nothing wrong at File:Ioan-Aurel Pop - oct 2018.jpg. Sorry for that. Gikü (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't even see that "this file" was linked. I need to change the link colours, since apparently my eyes can't differentiate them to regular text anymore. Regardless,  Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

LWRs

There's no way that OVERCAT should ever be used to make engineering ontological inferences such as "All pool reactors are LWRs".

Secondly (OVERCAT's usual failing), it's just clearer to leave LWR in there. LWR is a big, defining group within reactor physics. It's a big navigational path for our readers to navigate. There's no justification for stripping it away (and making this site a PITA to navigate or find anything), just because some potential logical reasoner could infer it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides which, is it even true that all pool reactors are LWRs? This might be true enough to apply it as a supercat on a category, but it's far from proof that no-one has ever constructed or designed a pool reactor using heavy water. What about Heisenberg's wartime reactor? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Doubts

Hi Huntster, can you help me out in 2 problems one is confusing and other is a trivial but unknown for me and need your suggesstions in that:

first is please go and see the axiom mission 1 approach and docking video at spacex youtube channel from 5:05:00 and tell if File:Blog exp67 ax1 040922.jpg is allowed on commons or not after the investigation this video tells nasa just retransmitted what i see in axiom mission 1 approach and docking video.

and 2nd one, first to tell i know only 10% about wikipedia draftspace. so i had a page called Soyuz MS-23 but it was removed to draftspace called Draft:Soyuz MS-23 i was waiting for more refs but due to the russia-ukraine crisis us company space adventures suspends its cooperation with Russia, so Soyuz ms-24 crew becomes soyuz ms 23 crew so i need to move the page to soyuz ms 23.

what is the ideal case to do. direct move to page ms 23 or place it in draft and then submit for review or should i delete the draft and then move ms 24 to ms 23. i can make ms 24 again with ms 25 resourcesChinakpradhan (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

[1] this infographic was before announcement of suspension of contract @Huntster Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, regarding the image, it would be PD-NASA because the camera is set up on the USOS side, likely installed by a NASA astronaut in the course of their duties. There's no evidence it is owned by Axiom.

Regarding the MS-23 page, I believe it would be premature to call MS-23 cancelled just because Space Adventured has backed out. Glavkosmos could step up and run things themselves (they are certainly positioning themselves to do so). In the absence of any source saying that MS-23 is cancelled and MS-24 is taking its place, let's not assume anything. There are three potential outcomes I can see: MS-23 goes forward as planned, MS-23 is cancelled and MS-24 is renamed, or MS-23 is cancelled and the designation is simply dropped with MS-24 continuing under its designation. Be patient until concrete announcements are made. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Huntster can you tell if this crew-1 livestream during crew flight suit portion is under nasa lisence or not. i dont know if ultimately this portion is by nasa or spacex. i need just one shot in that portion. i asked since the suit up was in nasa's o and c building. Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, are you talking about the time around the 20 minute mark? Yes, I have to believe the suit checkout is video from a NASA employee. That stream was a NASA production as far as I'm aware, and only certain sections (such as video from Hawthorne, from inside the spacecraft, and some other miscellaneous bits) would be from SpaceX. But, like you said, that particular section took place inside NASA's own building, and for a NASA mission. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Huntster there's a very very very big, i mean i cant explain it in words and the problem creator is NASA. i dont know how to tackle it even 1% by myself. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/where-is-the-rover/ you may have remembered this link. percy is in phase 2 of its mission exploring delta but nasa hasnt been concerned about this page. for phase 2 they havent updated basemap colour and its in b/w currently. now does it look good to update phase 2 for File:Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover Traverse Path And Ingenuity Helicopter Flight Path.png in b/w version or give a halt to updation of the image Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

moreover they have created a boundary while going from phase 1 (mission till now) to phase 2 not good for publish Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

in addition to this @Huntster a friend told ne that this is due to less often capture of colour images by MRO and only colour image here is a ESA one either by Mars express or trace gas orbiter that cant be used by nasa. so what must be done stick to b/w imageor halt updation till colour image arrives ?? Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, I see no reason to halt updates. Just accept the limitations for now, and I'm sure NASA will eventually update the map to full colour. We're in no rush. It is, ultimately, a minor inconvenience despite the visual incongruity. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok anyway have to wait for a few days as nasa hasn't joined the flight path of flight 26 till now. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

hi @Huntster should i rename the en:OSIRIS-REx page to "OSIRIS (spacecraft)" as nasa has changed the mission name to osiris apex after sample return and you can say its waste of time to recreate a mission page just for rendezvous of same mission Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When its heritage concept was proposed in the Discovery Program in 2004, it was called only OSIRIS, with REx for "Regolith Explorer" used descriptively rather than as part of the name. This mission is also sometimes called New Frontiers 3, for it being the third of the New Frontiers program missions.

this is what the page only says Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, definitely no, do not change the name. OSIRIS-APEX is the name of mission extension, not a change to the name of the spacecraft or overall mission. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Huntster please remove File:European Robotic Arm during activation.png and File:European Robotic Arm.png see exif. Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvios. One was removed almost immediately, the other is pending. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

out of File:The European robotic arm extends out from the Nauka module (iss067e034864) (cropped).jpg and File:The European robotic arm extends out from the Nauka module (iss067e034865) (cropped).jpg i support 1st one due to more clarity than second @Huntster please tell the one you like. Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, I tend to like File:The European robotic arm extends out from the Nauka module (iss067e034864) (cropped).jpg better because the lighting is flatter. In the second image, the different splotches of lighting detract from the overall quality. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

please review if this image is of NASA TV @Huntster. i nominated for speedy deletion seeing this editors work on wikimedia. Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, assuming you're talking about Starliner docks with ISS.jpg, then it is a photograph by cosmonaut Sergey Korsakov. I have requested speedy deletion. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

ok and sorry i forgot to link this image here Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Huntster there a dispute created by me at for name of the file, File:Ingenuity flight 26 real-time animation (108 frames).gif. i am not a file mover so can you please move back the properties of this page to its original page, File:Ingenuity flight 26 full real-time animation.gif. thank you Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan,  Done — Huntster (t @ c) 08:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

thanks a lot @Huntster Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)