Talk:Transit of Phobos from Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System / Mars (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mars (marked as Mid-importance).
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Not an eclipse?[edit]

The event could also be referred to as a partial occultation (or, popularly but inaccurately, a partial eclipse) of the Sun by Phobos.

Query: Why is this incorrect terminology? According to eclipse, an eclipse “is an astronomical event that occurs when one celestial object moves into the shadow of another”. Isn’t this what happens with Phobos and the Sun? And why is this transit covered in the eclipse article, if it isn’t an eclipse? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote this got it the wrong way around. A transit is a partial eclipse, or an eclipse that is short of a total eclipse, but not an occultation, which is when the closer object appears larger than the more distant object. In this case, Phobos appears smaller than the sun. Hyalos (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, on further review, there's a inconsistency of definition on the page on "Astronomical transit" compared to the on on the page "Occultation. Hyalos (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I've straightened these out after consulting dictionaries and a couple of NASA sites. See Talk:Eclipse for more detail (and a bit of a rant). Every once and a while someone puts in "corrections" of widely accepted terminology without bothering to check sources. Another one was the notion that the "Western Pacific" was the part of the ocean in the western hemisphere -- which the rest of the world calls the "Eastern Pacific" (and vice versa) --Dmh (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Viking lander and orbiter[edit]

Nothing editorial here, just wanted to record my opinion that using simultaneous observations from the lander and orbiter to verify the lander's position was a very nice piece of work! --Dmh (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)