Talk:Outer space/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unsourced material

The following sentences were removed from the end of the Boundary section because they lack references:

Note that the vascular blood, i.e. the blood within the circulatory system, does not boil because it remains pressurized within the body. Also, human skin does not need to be protected from low pressure or vacuum and is gas-tight by itself, but it still needs to be mechanically compressed to retain its normal shape. The region between the Armstrong line and the Karman line is sometimes termed near space.

It may be true, but it still needs proper citations. (Plus it is wandering off topic a bit.) The Armstrong line article has the same issue with unsourced content. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new lead image

I'd like to propose that the image at the right be adopted for the lead image. It contains the same information, but it more readily fits the browser view and the altitudes are closer to their actual scale. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Serendi^podous 19:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I like it, except that it doesn't show the atmospheric density (blue line in the current image). It makes up for that with other additional information not in the current image, though, imo.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, well I hadn't even noticed that line until you pointed it out. It's not readily apparent that's what it is showing. Praemonitus (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, indeed. Though that the atmospheric density line is potentially-useful information, it isn't labeled and doesn't give values at all, so I don't think the way it's displayed in the current image is very helpful anyway. Thus, I'd say the new image is an unqualified improvement; go for it. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 21:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Gotta go thumbs down on this image, its unreadable at thumb of 300px across and the maker notes its not very usable below a native resolution (430×700px). This image and the previous one have the same problem, its about the layers of the atmosphere and this is not the Atmosphere of Earth article. It also does not obviously show the only relevant information it could tell the reader --> where does "Outer space" begin? That could all be fixed with scaling/rewriting of the text in the image but there is a third problem: both images add to the WP:CHIMERA nature of this article. They depict the artificial boundary layer that is the treaty/technical designation of "Outer space" whereas most of this article describes "Space", two different topics and one is literally way bigger than the other. The major topic of the article should be depicted by the lead image, not the minor one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The image should depict the topic of the page exactly. In this case, what needs to be depicted is outer space and where "outer space" begins. ShifterFister (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to respond a point at a time:

1. The readability can be fixed by changing the 'upright' factor in the template.
2. The image is relevant to the second paragraph of the lede, and provides a context for the Earth-bound reader
3. Space is a mathematical and physical concept; outer space is a physical domain – I see the two as pretty much separate topics. This article is describing the domain, not the concept.
4. The comparative size of the two articles appears irrelevant to the point. One is just more developed.

Much of your argument also applies to the previous illustration. I suppose a Hubble Deep Field view would be an alternative, but to me that doesn't supply as much useful information to the lay reader. Maybe a 'scale of the universe' type of illustration. Praemonitus (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree with FoBM that this article covers a very large set of topics, most of which have their own articles and which aren't terribly well connected, I don't think that there's one image that conveys it well. (When I think of "outer space", I think of the very local bit of outer space where astronauts go; this article focuses mainly on all of interstellar and intergalactic space. I don't think the scope is really inconsistent with sources, but it does make for a somewhat unwieldy article.)

I think both of these images do (in combination with the caption) convey pretty well where space begins (and that the boundary is really a somewhat arbitrary definition). I think this image is much better than a Hubble Deep Field image would be, partly for the clarity reason Praemonitus mentioned and partly because galaxies (what the HDF shows) aren't really space; they're stuff in space. FoBM, do you have a better suggestion, since all of the issues you mention (except easily-fixed readability) are common to both the new image and the previous one?

I've upped upright from 1.25 to 1.5. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How to depict a void for the average reader? The guideline is a lead image should be a "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic" and "what our readers will expect to see". I would suggest the obvious that jumped to Ashill's mind, an astronaut in space---> [1], its a human scale and represents where we are going with this article. Trying do define one small part of the article (a line) mentioned in the lead and covered in the smaller fraction of the article is not representing the whole topic. The notion that "Space" is a mathematical and physical concept and "outer space" is a physical domain is the exact opposite of common view of those words for this topic: "outer space" is an arbitrary mathematical line/boundary and in this article's context "Space" is the physical domain (just ask Captain Kirk ;)). "Space", the mathematical and physical concept, is covered in another article called Space.

Scaling an image in the lead to 1.5

is not

recommended

because

all the

lead

text ends

up looking

like this.

The guideline is Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px") an I see no value in overwhelming the lead with an image to try to read something textual thats not there.

File:Earth's atmosphere.svg is almost exactly the "bad" example image noted at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, it is neither a good representation of outer space or space. The image and its caption give the reader no clue as to why it is even there. It also would not be used anywhere else in this article because it is "Earth's atmosphere", not the topic of this article. Sorry this all sounds cranky but we really seem to be trying to shoehorn in an image for no obvious gain. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the image does a very good job of depicting the transition from the Earth's atmosphere to outer space and I think is very relevant. It's also notable that the good article reviewer (a pair of fresh eyes) mentioned specifically that the lede image is "great".

Sorry about the width issue. I currently have a pretty wide browser on my computer and a phone browser; with upright=1.5, the text next to the image looked good in both. I of course should have checked more widths. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the very term "outer space" is defined by the Earth's atmosphere. Ergo, to me the image seems appropriate. In contrast, a man in a space suit is much more representative of space exploration than of outer space itself, so that doesn't work. The other image that might work is File:Earth's Location in the Universe VERTICAL (JPEG).jpg. But it has the same problem as the original image: it's too large. Praemonitus (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We've gone in a circle here, scaling the image back to a manageable size makes it unreadable as a thumb. Even if we did have an image that described "outer space" (the current one doesn't even mention the word) it would not be very useful for this article because the majority of the text is not about outer space. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Looking through the article again, the only section to which your statement could apply is Formation and State. Everything else is very much about outer space.

Maybe I have good eyes or a good monitor, but I find the current image easily legible at the current size. The text in the image is very slightly smaller than the font of the text in the article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't commented yet, but I have to say, the image as it is is just fine. It helps users understand the "outer" part of outer space. It gives a nice visual image for readers, and those who are interested can click on the thumbnail to enlarge it, which is the point of thumbnails. @Foundations of Bryn Mawr, I wonder if you are using an incorrect definition of outer space; as described in the article, outer spacebegins between 62-80 miles above the surface of the earth.Brirush (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of links to everyday words

I will remove some unhelpful links to everyday words. According to WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking "..., the following are not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context;" - Fartherred (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

From WP:UNDERLINK, links should create "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". By this criterion, headache can go since its article doesn't add much in the context of space sickness, but vomiting and cancer should stay.

Vomiting notes that one of the causes of vomiting is "motion sickness (which is caused by overstimulation of the labyrinthine canals of the ear)". This is what is occurring in the case of space sickness, which is not exaplained (nor should be explained) in this article. The lead also explains the relationship between nausea and vomiting, which is relevant because those symptoms are listed together here. Because of this, the vomiting link helps readers "understand the article more fully".

For cancer, the case for its inclusion is even clearer. This article notes that the radiation of outer space can increase cancer risk, but does not explain why. The curious reader can find the reason at cancer, which has an entire section on radiation-induced cancer. Reading this, the reader now understands the health risks of outer space more fully.

I acknowledge that these two links do qualify as the linking of everyday words, but I feel that the "help readers understand the article more fully" guideline should outweigh the everyday words guideline in cases where the guidelines conflict (which I believe to be the case here), since the purpose of wikipedia is to impart understanding. Per this reasoning, I will restore the links. A2soup (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose that a button be implemented that can turn links on and off, that way, if a user needs to access a link, it is quick and easy, while also providing the reader with minimal clutter on their screen. ShifterFister (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

problem with link to Other wikipedias in other languages

In the page you can see that there are no links to other languages. When I check the other langage wiki page , for example Uzay in Turkish wiki, I can see the link to this page in English wiki. I tried to add it by giving the other wiki's link info, It says target page is already linked. Problem persists that this page does not show the links to other languages. --Guyver (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe somebody needs to set up the Wikidata item for this topic then add the appropriate language entries. Unfortunately I can never find the right help topic for how to do that. You'd think that clicking on the Language link would point you to some useful information, but it doesn't. It's a bit of a tribal knowledge thing. Praemonitus (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

problem seems to be solved --Guyver (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The number of data

Praemonitus changed "Data indicate" to "Data indicates" and wrote in the edit summary that this normal U.S. usage. What is the reference for normal U.S. usage? - Fartherred (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, here 'data' is often used in the singular unless it is a count noun, so in this case it's typically "data indicates". Both are apparently correct usage though; it depends on the audience. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. "Data indicates" is the correct usage as the data never stops indicating, it will infinitely indicate. ShifterFister (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Cite error

Does anybody know what this means?

48.^ Jump up to: a b Prialnik 2000, p. 195–196. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FOOTNOTEPrialnik2000195.E2.80.93196" defined multiple times with different content (see ) (see the ).

Praemonitus (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this was resolved. Thanks you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Gravitational and Magnetic fields

Perhaps the Environment section should cover gravity and magnetic fields in space? What do you think? Praemonitus (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Praemonitus, Yes, I do think that the Environment section should cover gravity and magnetic field in space because they are extremely important in many contexts. ShifterFister (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

density of the interstellar medium

There seems to be a conflict between the information on this page, in the section on the Interstellar Medium, and on the wikipedia 'Interstellar Medium" page on the density of the interstellar medium. On this page, the interstellar medium (ISM) density is described as: "The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 10^6 particles per m^3, but cold molecular clouds can hold 10^8–10^12 per m^3." Yet the wikipedia 'Interstellar medium' page says "In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm^3 (1 million molecules per cm^3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10^−4 ions per cm^3."

There are a million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter. Taking an average of '10^8 to 10^12' to be 10^10, the interstellar medium section of this page is saying there are 10^10 particles per m^3 in a cold molecular cloud, which is the same as 10^4 particles per cm^3 in a cold molecular cloud. The interstellar medium page is saying 10^6 molecules per cm^3 'in cool dense regions'. Presumably 'cool dense regions' of the ISM is the same thing as 'the cold molecular cloud' but the numbers are off by 2 orders of magnitude: one page is saying a 1000 molecules in a cubic centimeter, the other one is saying a million.

I don't know if some one divided wrong going from cubic meters to cubic centimeters or if the various authors are referring to different authorities. DlronW (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Per Ferrière (2001):

"By terrestrial standards, the interstellar matter is exceedingly tenuous: in the vicinity of the Sun, its density varies from ∼ 1.5 × 10⁻²⁶ g cm⁻³ in the hot medium to ∼ 2 × 10−20⁻²⁰ × 10⁻¹⁸ g cm⁻³ in the densest molecular regions, with an average of about 2.7 × 10⁻²⁴ g cm⁻³ (see next subsections). This mass density, which corresponds to approximately one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter, is over twenty orders of magnitude smaller than in the Earth’s lower atmosphere."

However, table 1 in the same reference says 10² − 10⁶ hydrogen nuclei per cm³ near the Sun. Praemonitus (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm saying there is a conflict between this article "Outer Space" and the Wikipedia article entitled "Interstellar Medium". The Wikipedia article "Interstellar Medium" says that the density of 'cool, dense regions of the ISM' is 10^6 per cm^3. This Wikipedia "Outer Space" article says that the density of 'cold molecular clouds' in Interstellar Space is 10^8–10^12 per m^3 (in its section on "Interstellar Space"). I have no idea which one is right, but obviously they can't both be right: the numbers are off by 2 orders of magnitude: one page is saying a 1000 molecules in a cubic centimeter, the other one is saying a million. Either one is kind of cool to think about in terms of just how far from a vacuum those regions might be -- if I'd had to of guessed, I'd have guessed more like the 1 particle per cubic centimeter quoted from your reference.

But, I don't think your reference to the density of hydrogen near the sun is applicable. That's not 'interstellar', that's inside the solar system, 'interplanetary'. The interstellar medium is out between stars. I'm no expert, but, I don't think the density of the region inside the solar system is necessary similar to the density of interstellar space.

DlronW (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I understood your point. What I'm saying that a reference used in both articles appears to provide conflicting information. In this case, "close" to the Sun means within 8,500 parsecs. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Checking further, Cox (1999) "Allens' Astrophysical Quantities" p. 525, gives an interstellar gas density of 1.1 cm⁻³. The source for this is as follows:

Boulares, Ahmed; Cox, Donald P. (December 1990), "Galactic hydrostatic equilibrium with magnetic tension and cosmic-ray diffusion", Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, 365: 544−558, Bibcode:1990ApJ...365..544B, doi:10.1086/169509.

Hence, the value in this article is likely to be correct. Table 21.14 in Cox's work gives values for molecular clouds that are similar to those listed here, ranging from 10²−10⁴. The 10¹² value may be too high, but the 10⁸ per cubic meter is correct. Praemonitus (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Redundant information

There's redundancy between the final paragraph of the "Earth orbit" section and the "Cislunar space" section. The two should be consolidated. Praemonitus (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Praemonitus, the two sections have redundancy and this should be eliminated. As well, the two-sections should be clearly separated. ShifterFister (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Plasma (physics)

There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest outer space editors. Attic Salt (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is also being considered for demotion from "good article" status: [2]. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Space is NOT a "void"

I recently attempted to edit outer space's main page; I changed "void" to "expanse" because space is not a void, and whoever calls space a void is 100% wrong. Having space as a void implies there is nothing, which is far from the truth. Earth humans lack a general understanding of what space actually is due to lack of experience, but it is essentially an expanse where energy can freely travel/exist. I request my edit be put back into effect, which is substitution of the word "void" for "expanse" at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen 88923028193 AC (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the first sentence of the lede section of this article. I agree that this needs work, and I also note that the source cited for the first sentence (a book by Dainton) is more about philosophy than the "outer space" that is the subject of this article. I've removed that Dainton citation and inserted "expanse" as you suggest, but I am also interested to know what other editors think. For now, Attic Salt (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Words can have different meanings. One of the noun definition of a void is a vacuum, so it is a synonym for empty space.[3] However, "expanse" is probably a better word as it avoids confusion with [[Void (astronomy)]. Praemonitus (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it isn't "empty". Attic Salt (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither is a vacuum. Whatever. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Order of chapters

I propose to move the following chapters into the following order, starting with the unchanged chapter "Environment": "Regions" "Earth orbit" "Boundary" "Legal status" ...next as before Nsae Comp (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Attic Salt (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the section on human health should be moved down, possibly after the exploration section. Attic Salt (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was a little skeptical, but I think now that's a reasonable change. Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Please add after "The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270.45 °C; −454.81 °F).[1]" There is no evidence to support state before or cause of the bang. How is order a result of what should be disorder? Sufficient evidence has been presented in support of creation from nothing (ex-nihilo). Ross, H. (2014). Atheist Scientist Becomes Christian After Researching Evidence for God. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs God Is the Best Explanation for the Origin of the Universe. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwRR5WTgpp8 222.233.26.203 (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done, we follow WP:RS – Thjarkur (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

More space smell

May be too trivial and/or connected to marketing, but there is a NASA connection: "Astronauts describe the smell as a mix of gunpowder, seared steak, raspberries and rum." Mapsax (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

One wonders if it isn't a similar experience to the ringing in the ears one can get when standing in an utterly silent environment. Just something the brain makes up to fill in the sensory void. Praemonitus (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: tinnitus is what you are looking for. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't looking, but thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Thank you 118.211.160.190 for helping to improve this article. I believe the content that you wanted to add is already covered in the last sentence of the lead: Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space. 0xDeadbeef 12:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

FAA change to astronaut designation

The "Boundary" section lists that the United States recognizes anyone who has traveled above an altitude of 50 miles as an astronaut. In light of the FAA first changing these requirements, then abolishing the commercial astronaut space wings program, should this be removed and/or edited? Relevant sources: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8800.2.pdf https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-ends-commercial-space-astronaut-wings-program-will-recognize-individuals-reaching 2604:2A40:1CA2:0:E0EF:4196:68F:8170 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

xGEO Space

This paragraph was recently added:

The subregion of cislunar space that starts at geosynchronous orbit (GEO, approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi)) and extends out to the L2 Earth-Moon Lagrange point (448,900 km (278,934 mi)) beyond the orbit of the Moon is referred to as xGEO space.

However, the citation is incomplete and the evidence I checked indicates the statement is inaccurate. xGEO space is just military jargon for CISLunar space beyond geosynchronous orbit, so it's almost a synonym. Praemonitus (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue was addressed. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Light seconds

@Praemonitus: My addition of light seconds to the para about Deep Space was recently taken out and I wanted to counter that my addition was definately not original research, per WP:CALC.

Furthermore I firmly disagree that light seconds are not relateable. Kilometer have at these scales no more real life relateability, light seconds on the other hand do and are also more significant since it is the measure that observation and telecommunication needs to consider when handling such regions/distances of space. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp: I don't think so. Can you demonstrate that "light second" is widely used in communicating distances? No, it is generally only employed in the specialty fields of telecommunications, physics, and astronomy; not for everyday units. Ask a lay person what a "light second" means, and they may guess it has something to do with a horse race. It isn't something that most people can relate to, until you actually explain it. Anyway, a use of WP:CALC should include a footnote with the actual calculation, or how will editors be able to verify it without investigation? Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Horse race? Seriously? I dont think people cant grasp the concept of light second less than light year. Last but not least the footnote isnt difficult. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to show me that this unit is in common usage among the general public. It certainly doesn't show up in books. It isn't even used that often in scientific papers as a unit of distance. Even if you spell it out for the other 95% for whom the term isn't immediately obvious, what does "the distance light can travel in two seconds" tell you that is relatable? People can relate to miles or kilometres. They can even relate to multiples of the distance of the Moon from the Earth, or the Earth from the Sun. But light-seconds? That's just something big. Praemonitus (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont get why it needs to be a common unit or norm to explain and make a large distance relateable. Afterall I didnt suggest to replace the km value with the lightsecond one. Regarding your question what it can illustrate, well exactly what it is used for: how long does communication/transmissions/observations with/of the edge of deep space take and puts it into perspective of truely interstellar deep space. Because for someone who does not know how far millions of km are and how large interstellar deep space is in km mentioning light seconds gives an immediate feeling of how close the edge of this so-called deep space is in comparison to interstellar deep space, because everyone knows how small some seconds are in comparison to a year. Furthermore many sources do state that the Sun is 8 light minutes away, thus giving the light seconds of the edge of deep space/Earth's space gives a clear scale in respect to the size of the (inner) solar system. etc. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know why you're making such a fuss about this. There are already units listed that better communicate the distance. For the general public (the target of this encyclopedia) this unit would frankly require the level of communication that you are now using. Just saying "2 light-seconds" doesn't cut it in my mind. It's too obscure and potentially ambiguous. It would need to explain the units in a meaningful way, including comparisons. At that point, why bother? You haven't added anything new about outer space. Praemonitus (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to say that it wasnt original research. Beside that I just wanted to endorse the use of light seconds. But I dont want to drag this on. If lunar distance as an illustration of the distance is enough then thats ok with me. PS: lunar distance is a distance unit, with 1.3 light seconds, anyway ;). Nsae Comp (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)