Talk:IM-1

Move to IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander

I think that the name "Odysseus lunar lander" makes for a great mnemonic device, and should also be included in the article title.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that would make the article title unnecessary long. A redirect might be a good idea, though. Opportunity Rover (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Requested move 23 February 2024

The following discussion 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.

---

IM-1 → IM-1 mission – "IM-1" is vague. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose We should follow other such unmanned lunar missions where the word "mission" is omitted from the title of the article. See for example Chang'e 3, Chang'e 4, Chang'e 5, Chandrayaan-3, and Smart Lander for Investigating Moon. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I tried finding this article using the name that is in the news (Odysseus) and the only one I knew without going into a news article to find some other word to search with. There was nothing about this object in the first twenty hits. I think we need some way for people to easily get to information about the Odysseus lunar mission without knowing anything more than "Odysseus." It could be a redirect or something like "Odysseus (lunar lander)," which would presumably show up not too far down a hit list. Kdammers (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A link was added to the Odysseus (disambiguation) page. Search engines should figure it out soon-ish. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Established precedent is that this isn’t necessary since the mission doesn’t have the same name as any other articles or well-known topics (unlike Curiosity (rover), for example). Really, the only thing this could be confused for is the interstellar meteor “IM1”, but I don’t think similarity is a good enough reason to move the article. Opportunity Rover (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose If there are other topics that could be referred to by "IM-1", we should have a disambiguation page, but right now it strikes me as unnecessary disambiguation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Unnecessary move, we have other missions like the Luna program, for example, where we call the mission "Luna 16" instead of "Luna 16 mission". Unless we have multiple topics called "IM-1", this is unnecessary. There's only one other article that is similar, so move isn't needed. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 12:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Vagueness is fine, and if there are other topics of concern we have hatnotes for those. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Stoplookin9. When it comes to naming missions, it isn't accompanied usually by the word "mission" at the end. It's the same way that you wouldn't refer to Apollo 11 as "the Apollo 11 mission". TwistedAxe [contact] 14:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: There is already a well-established standard. And per everything above. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Everything above, as well keeping title simple. Adding "mission" is unnecessary

vghfr, harbinger of chaos 16:40, 23 February 2024 (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.

Content of lead

There are well-established guidelines in WP:MOS for the content appropriate to the lead section of an article. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Including, but not limited to, overquoting, pull quotes, and following clauses with commas. Additionally, the lede should define the topic; the topic is clearly definable. Apollo 11 does not read, "In 1969 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted the fourth mission with the Apollo Lunar Module", as what lunar lander is used in a mission should not be the first sentence. IM-1 is historic because it is the first commercial lunar landing. Omitting that from the lede precludes the reader from understanding that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The current lede sentence is factually incorrect: IM-1 was not the first CLPS mission. That was Peregrine by Astrobotic. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was aware of Peregrine but hadn't worded it correctly. I've amended the sentence while I regather what I had intended to say. I believe I meant to say that it was the first flight, but I had added the information about the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program afterwards. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I made an additional qualification in my last edit set: LCROSS was technically a landing, just not a lander. Arlo James Barnes 02:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Lander vs. impactor. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed section rename from 'Background and selection' to 'Motivation and funding'

A 'Motivation and funding' section might improve the article's coverage of topics currently discussed in the 'Background and selection' section and some of what's in the following 'Mission hardware' section. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think “background and selection” works better. “Motivation and funding” seems too specific. Opportunity Rover (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"Motivation" also seems to insinuate ulterior motives. Funding is fine, if someone wants to provide information in a neutral tone. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of EagleCam into IM-1

Proposed merge discussion section 1

This single hardware element of the IM-1 mission doesn't need its own article, especially since (a) it doesn't seem to have actually attempted its purpose, and (b) these sources are largely primary and independent notability is questionable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't served its mission but will do a casual imaging mission post landing if possible —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 13:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, EagleCam was never even deployed, it should be merged. It is just another component of the IM-1 mission. Scu ba (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, Unless something unexpected happens, EagleCam is unlikely to have any significant notability beyond being related to IM-1. Miralitt (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Else @Miralitt, this NDL and LN-1 did more work than EagleCam and have no independence. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 18:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold EagleCam may be used in IM-2 if at all. Keep as separate article.207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold IM-1 mission is not yet concluded. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, CubeRover. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Also see: https://twitter.com/SpaceTechLab/status/1762248999128428790 (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold For what it's worth, EagleCam is covered by secondary sources, though I don't think it has any stand-alone articles about it besides those coming from the university. (See https://spacenews.com/?s=EagleCam and https://www.space.com/search?searchTerm=EagleCam). However, it looks like IM-1's mission is ending sooner than expected, so if EagleCam doesn't end up deploying (which as a current ERAU student I'd be really disappointed to hear), it wouldn't be notable enough to have its own article. (https://spacenews.com/intuitive-machines-expects-early-end-to-im-1-lunar-lander-mission/) SpacePod9 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact the coverage all stem from university press releases is why this hasn't established independent notability. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.177.222.171 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree Just see colmena as an example, we can keep it seperate, prehaps as a stub but in my opinion CubeSAT ( or pseodocubes like eagle cam an instrument not a CubeSAT) deserve their own articles especially something that go to the 🌑 . RAZOR-X (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge discussion section 2

Disagree, EagleCam was semi-historical for the university's own agenda and mission. With the significant amount of secondary coverage of EagleCam, as well as the entire namesake of the technology being a coined term, EagleCam was a significant instrument in terms of publicity rather than functionality. It's also worth noting that the IM-1 mission has yet to be concluded, and even if it is to conclude without the execution of the EagleCam module, EagleCam in and of itself is a public marketing for the IM-1 mission and the commercial lunar industry and its ties to post-secondary institutions such as Embry-Riddle. 155.31.115.22 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Unclear how something being "historical for the university's own agenda" means it is inherently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A sourced mention in said university's article would suffice in that case. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge into either/both of the IM-1 or ERAU articles. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The mission said on twitter it has failed to take images and presumably dead as it is among List of spacecraft powered by non-rechargeable batteries, so in this discussion @ZimZalaBim@Sdsds I have a trivial doubt is it Success, partial success, partial failure or failure? Deploying is baby tech and not equivalent to landing. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 05:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree This is User:SpacePod9 adding some more comments. I'm going to change what I said earlier given EagleCam has effectively completed its mission. I'll start by stating that I am a current ERAU student, I was not directly involved with the lab that designed EagleCam, but I'm interested in satellites and specifically cubesats. Among CubeSats, EagleCam is certainly notable enough to have its own article. To my knowledge, it was the world's first CubeSat to soft-land on the moon (through its "mothership" Odysseus), one of the first payloads designed by university students to make it to the moon's surface, and the first payload to use Wi-Fi on the moon (this last point comes from https://erau.edu/eaglecam, and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=10115622, the latter link is a detailed IEEE paper on the CubeSat and its payloads & objectives (it wasn't just a detachable camera!)). The vast majority of established CubeSat articles on Wikipedia consist of CubeSats launched into Low-earth orbit, conducting routine experiments, sometimes successfully, or with a decent amount of secondary sources (TigriSat, OSSI-1, for example), as well as ones that lack good sources (AubieSat-1)), among most of the others in the list page List_of_CubeSats. I'd say EagleCam is certainly more notable than any low-earth orbiting CubeSat, and it's comparable to the CubeSats launched as secondary payloads on Artemis 1 like Team Miles, OMOTENASHI, and Lunar IceCube. While none of these completed their primary missions, and in many news articles they were often grouped together with the other seven CubeSats as a footnote compared to Artemis 1's primary mission, they were still notable in themselves to get their own Wikipedia article. Their articles appear to be more complete than EagleCam's, which brings me to my next point.

I have a feeling that the reason why the EagleCam article has discussions to be merged is simply because the article (as of the time 21:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)) is a stub, with no photos, infobox, and its text doesn't have the best grammar nor the best tone for an encyclopedia. These are all issues which need to be addressed before the text of this article is copied to others, but I don't believe these issues alone should leave EagleCam as a footnote in the IM-1 article compared to the 100+ CubeSats that have their own articles in the English Wikipedia so far. Instead the article should be improved and expanded upon to fit the guidelines of the English Wikipedia and WikiProject:SpaceFlight in particular. SpacePod9 (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet, I feel that this doesn't address the lack of WP:COVERAGE on this subject enough to adhere to normal WP:GNG and WP:N standards. As established earlier, most coverage is by the university behind the development of Eagle Cam, thus not establishing independent notability. I'd recommend a hold for now. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 00:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear if the topic meets the WP:GNG guidelines and we don't have a WP:SNG guideline specific to spaceflight articles. (That's an oversight that should be corrected, BTW.) My sense is that EagleCam might meet the spaceflight SNG if it existed. Human-made objects on the surface of the Moon are rare and notable. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge discussion section 3

Agree: I started the EagleCam article in the hope and expectation that it would succeed, but unfortunately it was a bust this time around. People prefer to read articles about experiments that actually worked, far more than reading articles about experiments that didn't. In one of the press conferences Intuitive Machine's president, Steve Altemus made it clear that the failure of EagleCam was due to some design flaw in the camera itself, and not due to any shortcomings on the Intuitive Machines side of things. Steve Altemus said that his alma mater, where they made this thing, is going to give it another go for IM-2. If the article does get merged, and if the EagleCam succeeds next time around on the IM-2 mission, then I believe that perhaps it may warrant its own article again at that time. Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hold per my statement above. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hold: After reviewing the page view statistics for the EagleCam, it is receiving nearly as many page views as the CubeSat article. Actually the EagleCam article once had over 30,000 hits and the CubeSat article has never had more than 6,000.

(My newly added explanation follows) I apologize and you were correct. I was in error, mixing up the Nova-C pageviews per day (PVPD) number with the EagleCam PVPD number. EagleCam maxed out at 2,000 PVPD, not over 30,000. I believe that this is still a substantial number of page views for such an article about a camera system that has yet to work. Daily page view numbers are kept internally by Wikipedia software, and can be accessed by clicking on the Page information link that can usually be found on the left side any given web page, then clicking on the Page view statistics link at the very bottom of the "Page information" page. Lighthumormonger (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

(My original comment text now continues) I suspect that the fact that this camera system is being designed by college students may pique the curiosity of some readers. With such high page view statistics I would say it might not hurt to keep this article for a little while longer. Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For as long as the EagleCam article is being read, I think its content should be updated and changed to match the quality of similar CubeSat / spaceflight missions. I'm curious though, where did you get the 30,000 number from for EagleCam? Looking at pageviews.wmcloud.com, I only see about 7,000 total views for EagleCam and ~20,000 views on CubeSat in the same timeframe (see https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&redirects=0&start=2024-01-31&end=2024-03-01&pages=EagleCam%7CCubeSat) SpacePod9 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Better to have one mistake corrected than to have two errors left behind. I've corrected and then inserted the more accurate number of page views just above. Lighthumormonger (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Another good reason to leave the article in place is because there are now over 200 other Wikipedia articles that have linked to the EagleCam article. See What links here. Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Many of those (likely most) are the result of links in navigation boxes. And replacing this article with a redirect doesn't hurt readers in any case. The question is not so much of public attention giving notability; it's whether the subject has sufficient coverage from independent viewpoints. Eybeball-hungry journalists are not always independent rational investigators of a subject. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the vast majority of those links to EagleCam come from the three spaceflight templates at the very bottom of its page, which are also linked to a bunch of other notable articles. But eventually I'm sure EagleCam will be mentioned at ERAU and CubeSat in detail soon. By the way @Sdsds, do you believe any of the citations on the current iteration of EagleCam were written by "Eybeball-hungry [sic] journalists" which wouldn't make them reliable sources in your opinion? And would that make the article's sources and verifiability an outlier compared to most articles about small lunar probes and CubeSats on Wikipedia? SpacePod9 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding journalists as reliable sources for Wikipedia: "It varies." The criteria subtly linked above are a Wikipedia content guideline and a Wikipedia policy. Particularly WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail [and] prominence of placement." Please recognize I support coverage of EagleCam on Wikipedia, giving it due detail, prominence and placement. The mutually agreeable solution here is to find secondary sources that cover an over-arching topic (e.g. cubesats) which present EagleCam as particularly important within that category. It will happen eventually, but this is not 'WikiNews.' When a neutral expert on the subject of cubesats is found to have highlighted EagleCam's acheivements, returning the material in an article covering the specific subject of EagleCam will be totally defensible. Article merges aren't permanent things! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, eyeball hungry journalists are not always the best drivers of the news cycle, but that is all that we have to work with, no? So long as the public interest is not being harmed, I don't see any harm in leaving the article in place. What would you say about comparing the maximum page views per day regarding CubeSats versus the EagleCam? The EagleCam max was about 2000 views per day and the CubeSat max is 7,000. The EagleCam only first launched two weeks ago. CubeSats first launched in 2003. After the first 3 month of the CubeSat article, it's maximum page view hits per day was 435. Even though the technology of the EagleCam certainly seems to be far "less than ideal" at this point, I would say that public interest in the Eagle cam after only a few weeks is levels of magnitude higher than public interest was with Cubesats when they first came out. Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Page views (and public interest in the subject) aren't in doubt. The only question is whether, given the as-yet limited amount of coverage in secondary sources, having a separate article now gives the subject undue weight. When we find a source that rigorously compares EagleCam to other cubesats, we'll be golden! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Right now any such comparison would give the EagleCam an F because it has miserably failed, and CubeSats might get a much better rating because they generally seem to work. I don't know where this article is going to go, but wherever it goes I'm sure the EagleCam will do whatever it's supposed to do the next time around. (Maybe it's supposed to croak again, who knows?) Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat replying to both @Lighthumormonger and SpacePod9: did any journalist report having asked a cubesat expert for their opinion on EagleCam? If so: (a) they were doing the job investigative journalists are supposed to do, and (b) it would be enough to justify a separate EagleCam article. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, I must agree with SDSDS. The current structure and configuration of Wikipedia does not and cannot really allow such editing in Wikipedia, despite the fact that it might not do any real harm to our reader-ship to keep that article in here. It might not be compatible with our "editor-ship." Maybe someday in the future Wikipedia might he able find a slightly more modern and improved "ship" with that one!

Now when are they ever gonna ever get around to buying that new ocean liner for their editors? This little tugboat they have for us, sometimes it just makes me feel a little sea-sick, but I guess that just goes with the territory. Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I see your point on having a "CubeSat expert" mention EagleCam - it would certainly help it be notable and perhaps put it on the path to GA. I don't recall any of the news sources having interviewed a "CubeSat expert"; most of the time quotes came from the EagleCam team faculty and students themselves, or from spokespersons with Intuitive Machines / NASA regarding CLPS. I suppose you could send a tweet to Bob Twiggs or another famous person in CubeSats to get that "expert opinion". But if having an "expert opinion" on an article's subject is a requirement to be a stand-alone article, then a large portion of the current articles under WP:SpaceFlight would have to be merged and/or removed. Lets compare this Wiki's work on IM-1 and its CubeSat payload against the most notable moon mission of this decade: Artemis 1 and its CubeSat payloads.

Checking the references for the following articles: ArgoMoon, BioSentinel, CubeSat for Solar Particles, EQUULEUS, Lunar IceCube, Lunar Polar Hydrogen Mapper, Near-Earth Asteroid Scout, OMOTENASHI, LunIR, and Team Miles, the vast majority of references were from sources published before these CubeSats launched; they came from the government agencies / companies responsible for them (NASA, JAXA, organization tweets, laboratories, etc) who were directly involved in the creation of these CubeSats. Not one of these articles or their references has any mention of a "CubeSat expert" who was not directly associated with the topic and attested to the notability of these ten CubeSats compared to any others. Press releases and news reporters of course talked about them, second to the main Artemis 1 mission of course, but from what I understand you wouldn't define them as experts. If EagleCam gets merged into IM-1 because it lacks an "expert" commentary on its mission, would you and the wiki community support the merging of all ten Artemis cubesat articles into Artemis 1, and would you follow through for the merging or deletion of the individual articles for the hundreds of CubeSats deployed into LEO / from the ISS that aren't nearly as unique as the lunar CubeSats? SpacePod9 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not likely to do any merge anytime soon. I am however likely to one day close this discussion with no consensus. Have a cupcake. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment - compare coverage with Smart_Lander_for_Investigating_Moon#Rovers (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge discussion section 4

Merge - The EagleCam has absolutely no relevance outside of the IM-1 mission, and failed during said mission. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IM-1 Press Kit

I found the mission Press Kit here:https://www.intuitivemachines.com/_files/ugd/7c27f7_51f84ee63ea744a9b7312d17fefa9606.pdf from the mission page at https://www.intuitivemachines.com/im-1

This seems like a pretty good source to reference and perhaps get a few promotional images from. I figured it was already in the main article, but I couldn't find the url using ctrl-f, so I'd thought I'd put it here. SpacePod9 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the press kit is a great resource. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)