Talk:Unmanned exploration

This article was originally titled Mars (planet). It was moved as, to date, Mars is only accessible to unmanned exploration and astronomy.

Why I made this article

@ThunderingTyphoons!, Traveler100, Pashley, AndreCarrotflower:

• We need to be ready for when someone does visit Mars.
• There are plenty of Mars-themed attractions on Earth.
• We need to deter vandals from using this link.

Libertarianmoderate (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

When a general travel can visit, then can add.

Can create a travel topic on places to visit about Mars

If vandalism occurs delete. Giving a graffiti vandal a wall does not help.

--Traveler100 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add more Earth locations when I get the chance. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, we have a Moon article, but nobody's been there since before the Sony Walkman was invented. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

For this to be a usable article, we need some way to get a manned mission to Mars, something for them to see or do when they're there, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep. As long as there's no way for anything but a robot to get there, we have a problem. K7L (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a destination for human beings until one has set foot on its surface, or at least orbited it, and therefore not an appropriate Wikivoyage travel article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Turn this back into a redirect, yes or no

We do not need to nominate this article at vfd. I think turning this back into a redirect is the obvious choice per policy. What's the counter-argument? I hope to make quick work of this by consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It should not be a destination article, but I see no reason why it cannot be a travel topic. Must be a few observatories where the public and view Mars or science museums with good exhibitions on the subject? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In theory I agree that it could be a travel topic, but I'm not sure there's enough Mars-related travel information to merit a whole article...maybe it would be better to merge to Space or Astronomy. Of the five listings currently in the article, one is already mentioned at Space#On Earth (Cape Canaveral), three others seem like they would fit there, and the other one (Meteorites for Sale) is not travel-related. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge into Space could work. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There have been many articles nominated for deletion over the years, but this is the first that someone has proposed hurling the offending page into outer space. K7L (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's already there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought that only a short time ago I suggested creating a Mars article and it went nowhere. And now I have the opinion that it is not very useful to have such an article — a redirect to Space or Astronomy seems reasonable. Selfie City (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Consensus seems to be a redirect to space. Selfie City (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Another possibility would be a travel topic on unmanned exploration of the cosmos, much like we have astronomy as a travel topic to discuss viewing points which we can see but can't reach yet by manned or unmanned space missions. The space and moon articles are destinations for astronauts. K7L (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I would support such a topic if someone wants to start one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek, K7L: Yes, I wouldn't mind starting an unmanned exploration travel topic. Selfie City (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

One word of caution about such a topic: It should be focused on Earth-bound places associated with unmanned exploration that can be physically visited. Sites such as NASA's site or Wikipedia are much better for coverage of unmanned exploration per se. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that scope limitation, but I'm not sure an unmanned exploration article makes sense. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to incorporate that content into the Space and Astronomy articles? There must be a lot of overlap between museums, etc. related to unmanned exploration and related to space/astronomy in general. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if Ikan Kekek's idea of an unmanned exploration travel topic is one that's about earth-bound places, I think that already exists in the space article. If that's the case we may as well just redirect Mars (planet) there after all. Selfie City (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps he is attempting to restrict this topic unduly? Look at any other historical travel article, and there's some informative and educational explanation of the history and geography involved - before the laundry list of museums and sites at which something or other took place back in the day, we explain why there was a war or a mad colonisation rush and who were the principal characters, along with the context. Likewise, merely listing every launch pad in the galaxy without explaining the history first would make for a rather dull and pointless article on planetary exploration.

Our current space article seems to focus on manned exploration, Earth orbit and space tourism. It has nothing to say about sending robots, non-human animals or machines further afield, although there are likely many science and aviation museums which cover these and the related topics. Astronomy is even further from the topic, as looking at a planet through a telescope is a very different activity from sending a robot to explore the planet with telemetry for science. We include the museum listings so that there's something the voyager can actually visit today, but we're here to educate - and not merely publish a yellow page directory of hotels and restaurants. K7L (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying a section in Space and then splitting it off if it gets too long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ User:K7L has moved the article to Unmanned exploration and rewritten significant parts of it, but I still don't think it makes sense as a separate article. Most or all of the travel-related information is related to astronomy or space in general and is not specific to unmanned exploration. This article seems like an unnecessary and confusing duplication/splitting of content, and I'm increasingly convinced that it should be merged to Space. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Our existing space article appears to be about space tourism, where a select few with very deep pockets have managed to tag along on missions to the International Space Station or on simulated training flights. That's not the same topic. There is no space tourism to Mars or other points beyond the reach of manned exploration. K7L (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The Space article also includes museums about space, in the Space#On Earth section. Some of the museums listed here are already in that section. The others should be too—they're not just about unmanned exploration, but rather about space and space travel more generally. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's unmanned exploration, so no-one's going to be exploring on these spacecraft. We may as well redirect to space. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)