Talk:Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Met instruments / Space Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorological instruments and data task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Space weather task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Article name

Should this page be named Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite or UARS? The latter seems a bit more specific. Compare to COBE, ERBS, IRAS, ROSAT. Oskar Liljeblad 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observational Database?

A large observational database of many different atmospheric constituents from a host of platforms including UARS is available. This was created as part of ESA Envisat and NASA Aura validation. It is of general use. Do you think it should be added to the article text? Dlary 03:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6-ton NASA satellite set to fall

I think this article should be included in the article. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7651951-6-ton-nasa-satellite-set-to-fall --Dia^ (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could have quite a few pages with that same information. The official NASA site has current data though. For anyone interested in the risk assessment, it's at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/585584main_UARS_Status.pdf

Just to show how thorough they do the assessment.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacture

In case someone wants to expand the pre-launch history a bit. http://library01.gsfc.nasa.gov/goddardnews/April_1985.pdf

--192.31.106.34 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

instrument life expectancy

Can we say how long the Improved Stratospheric and Mesospheric Sounder (ISAMS) that operated for less than a year was intended to operate for, and what ended operation ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reentry prediction

A source: The last updated prediction of the reentry is at: http://reentrynews.aero.org/1991063b.html. A semi-permanent record of it is (collage): http://i.stack.imgur.com/5sau2.png

It shows from where debris could have been seen and where not.

--Mortense (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Decommissioning

The description of UARS' 2005 decommissioning is misleading: "The original mission duration was to be only three years, but in June 2005, 14 years after the satellite's launch, six of its ten instruments were still operational. The George W. Bush administration reduced funding for the Earth Science Enterprise, but increased concerns over ozone depletion in the scientific community made the de-commissioning of UARS controversial."

Careful reading of the cited reference http://history.nasa.gov/monograph38.pdf shows that the controversy involved the planned 2001 decommissioning. The decision to decommission was made during the Clinton administration. UARS was spared when the satellite QuikTOMS (carrying an atmospheric ozone mapper) suffered a launch failure.

In August 2005, UARS experienced a battery cell reversal (http://lasp.colorado.edu/news/2005/UARS_sep.htm) that forced decommissioning to occur earlier than planned.

This decision was entirely uncontroversial. There were no political aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.123.241 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-entry sightings

Since there is no "official" declaration with any certainty as to where it came down, I would say that at least making mention in the main article of bona-fide (and cite-able) media reports of first-hand claims of sightings of fire-ball objects in the sky that jive with known orbital position and time-of-passage are newsworthy and notable for inclusion in the main article.

We know of one such media publication describing a sighting south of Calgary (Alberta, Canada). The UARS satellite was indeed passing over High River AB at about 12:21 to 12:23 am (EDT) and NASA was announcing a few hours earlier that it's best guess for the re-entry window was from 11:45 pm to 12:45 am (EDT) so an appearance over High River AB is well within NASA's estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.81.147 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timereferences?

Is it safe to assume that all time references that lack a timezone indicator is EDT? Electron9 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentricity

Eccentricity is incorrectly listed as 0°. Eccentricity is dimensionless, and has no units. This should say Eccentricity 0. I'm not going to fix this, but someone else might want to. SimpsonDG (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]