Talk:IM-2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IM-2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astronomy: Moon Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force.

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page history

A news item involving IM-2 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 March 2025.

Wikipedia

‹ The template below (Merged-from) is being considered for merging with Copied. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

‹ The template below (Copied) is being considered for merging with merged-from. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Text and/or other creative content from this version of PRIME-1 was copied or moved into IM-2 with this edit on 12 March 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Wikipedia's space section is pure propaganda for White Pride

This is not the first time that a crash landing has been called a success on Wikipedia. It happened with IM-1 too. Cut out the propaganda. Firefly was the first commercial firm to land on the moon. IM crashed - twice. Both times, we have seen propaganda here and that is unfortunately driven by a sense of White pride. What is more, this sense of White pride is among liberals since liberals are the ones who dominate Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E88D:1020:3F1E:9718:791:67FF (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Captain Infinity (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your complaint to mean that the last paragraph implied the mission was a success because it talked about analysis of data, rather than focusing on the how, why and when the mission ended. I have amended the paragraph to better reflect the cited source and what happened with the mission/lander. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's space section is pure propaganda for White Pride"

[CITATION NEEDED] Czyszy (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PRIME-1

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.

Merged

12 March 2025

Moved from Talk:PRIME-1 § Merge with IM-2

Both IM-2 and PRIME-1 refer to the same mission, they are alternative names for the same mission. Sources: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=PRIME-1

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6828

https://www.supercluster.com/launches/prime-1-im-2 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on what the name of the article should be (Prime-1 or IM-2), I am not entirely sure which is the offical name. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support making PRIME-1 a subsection of IM-2's payloads section. Scuba 19:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the merge templates, designating PRIME-1 as the "source" and IM-2 as the "destination" article, the latter would survive the merge. See Talk:IM-2#Merge with PRIME-1 SpacePod9 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge, as per https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=PRIME-1; IM-2 is the common name for this mission. SpacePod9 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge to IM-2 as that article seems far more up-to-date and is the more commonly-used name for this mission. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, PRIME-1 is the primary payload for IM-2, and not the mission name. There are multiple missions aboard IM2, and PRIME-1 is just one of them. NASA refers to it this way, since that is the NASA portion of the mission, and the CLPS funding portion. The PRIME-1 content should be corrected to indicate that they are not the same, PRIME-1 is a constituent of IM2 and not identical to IM2, it is the reason the mission exists and why it has the funds to reach the Moon, but not the only thing on the mission. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly merged. Based on a Google search for prime-1 mostly returning the unrelated "Prime 1 Studio", PRIME-1 does not appear to be independently notable for its own article.
In addition to the existing PRIME-1 lead that clarifies this, I added a § Payloads heading to address 65.92.246.77's concerns. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 9 March 2025

It has been proposed in this section that IM-2 be renamed and moved to IM-2 Athena.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

IM-2 → IM-2 Athena – WP:RECOGNIZABILITY most of the news reports referred to it by the lander's name "Athena" when it landed and tipped over. 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). C F A 15:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation. Lander is not normally referred to as "IM-2 Athena". A redirect can be created if you're concerned about accessibility. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems like common sense to use an actual, searchable word in the article title. When I came searching for details on the lander I did not search for "IM-2" or "Prime-1", I searched for "Athena lander", which is the way it was titled when I heard about it on the news. "IM" means Instant Message to me, and "Prime-1" sounds like a canned dog food. Keeping an ambiguous name like IM-2 means most folks searching for the page will hit a redirect, or worse, a disambiguation page. Captain Infinity (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose 143 other lunar missions including all the Luna, Zond, Apollo, and the IM-1 mission are named for the mission and do not include vehicle or lander names in the title. There is no good reason to depart from this naming convention.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'll make the argument that the given names to the vehicles that carried out space missions, like Apollo 11's Eagle and Columbia, and the names of the space shuttles like Atlantis, Challenger, and Discovery, are not attached to the names of the missions they flew in Wikipedia's article titles (e.g. STS-135 is not STS-135 Atlantis), even if some news articles (especially during the shuttle era) only referred to the names of the shuttles and not their missions. But the redirect and disambiguation pages should be made though. I'd say the vaguenuess of IM-1, IM-2, etc, is Intuitive Machines' fault, and not Wikipedia's for reporting what they named their spacecraft and what other space news websites have reported it as. SpacePod9 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support It is probably wise to have a disambiguation page for Athena, or if there is one, to include IM-2 there. Otherwise, renaming the article to IM-2 Athena does not seem to cause any immediate issues, besides inconsistency NikolaiVektovich (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as this is the common name, and is probably what people would search for. — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 14:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is about the whole mission, not just the lunar lander, so the name is appropriate. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as above for Wikipedia:RECOGNIZABILITY. Perhaps in the future, when this is less relevant, it can be switched back, but the average person probably only knows the name "Athena." Cdominic8 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, most people know the lander as "Athena".

Gnu779 ( talk) 08:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in opposition to the "whole mission" argument, I doubt most people will know the mission name either. The majority of google search data shows "Athena Mission" is significantly more searched for than IM-2. Cdominic8 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Informed editors should know that a similar move request is being made at Talk:IM-1#Requested_move_9_March_2025 to move IM-1 --> IM-1 Odysseus under the same reasons, if you would wish to oppose or support the move there. SpacePod9 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and news coverage. Also, the current blurb on WP:ITN focuses on Athena more than IM-2. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 23:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As others have said, the IM-2 mission not only encompasses the lunar lander itself, Athena, but also the scientific experiments and payloads that were on board. Additionally, there is a great lack of precedent for the proposed naming scheme. Case in point, prior lunar landing missions like the previous IM-1 mission and the Apollo missions do not include the lunar landers' names within their titles. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 17:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you I ain't talking about IM-1. It happened about a year ago.

Gnu779 ( talk) 14:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it doesn't discredit the fact that other pages like Space Shuttle missions and the Apollo missions do NOT include the name of any lander nor shuttle (e.g. Atlantis), as SpacePod9 noted. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 00:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"IM-1" has a move request as noted by SpacePod9 above -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh...

Gnu779 ( talk) 12:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of spacecraft needed

Apologies that I was the one who got the article infobox images taken down off of commons, but they seemed to be promotional images created by Intuitive Machines, not NASA, and therefore weren't eligible to be included on the commons under a NASA public domain license. Luckily, intuitive machines has plenty of images on their website and press kit that can be included in the article under fair use terms, and perhaps there's an image of the lander out there that NASA took themselves and released into the public domain, as in the IM-1 article. I also thought that the IM-1 article had an image provided by Intuitive Machines themselves under fair use of the moment of landing showing the broken leg that caused it to tip-over, but I may be misremembering things. It would be nice to have the photo of IM-2 on its side that Intuitive Machines sent to all of those news agencies in the article too, under fair use. Something to think about for anyone interested. SpacePod9 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the image of the sideways lander. 3df (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mission order

§ Background has the order as:

Astrobotic Technology's Peregrine
Intuitive Machines' IM-1
Firefly Aerospace Ghost Mission 1
IM-2

However, the infobox has "CLPS 3".

Also different is Commercial Lunar Payload Services § History, which has (On April 8, 2020, NASA announced ...):

Astrobotic's
Intuitive Machines'
OrbitBeyond's
Masten Space Systems

According to that page, on June 11, 2020 and October 16, 2020, Astrobotic Technology got its second CLPS contract and Intuitive Machines got their second CLPS contract. Astrobotic doesn't appear twice in either list, and IM only appears twice in this article's list. What is the correct numbering? 216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked too thoroughly, but I haven't found any reliable sources to support the "CLPS 1", "2", or "3" as names for the CLPS contracts for the Peregrine mission or either Intuitive Machines launch. Rather, NASA seems to use "TO" followed by a number or letter like TO 2-IM, TO 2-AB, or CP-22, as per this NASA website: https://science.nasa.gov/lunar-science/clps-deliveries/ There may be other information out there regarding the exact contract details in another website somewhere. So perhaps the table on Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services#List_of_missions_announced_under_CLPS needs to be amended and the name in IM-2's infobox should be changed and cited.

Regarding the actual launch order, the article and your first list have it right, as per the sources in the Launch column of that CLPS table and 2024 in spaceflight and 2025 in spaceflight. SpacePod9 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "mission" to "launch" to clarify this. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]