Jump to content

Talk:Europa (moon): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 281: Line 281:
[[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
::However, Europa has no 'mountains' - Mars does. Europa has cracks in the ice where jagged edges do indeed rise for many meters, but I'd take some exception with this particular comment/astronomer over the overwhelming majority who state otherwise?
::However, Europa has no 'mountains' - Mars does. Europa has cracks in the ice where jagged edges do indeed rise for many meters, but I'd take some exception with this particular comment/astronomer over the overwhelming majority who state otherwise?
:::Please sign your ^ posts. Which astronomers say the surface is flat like a billiard ball? Every informed scientific statement - and painting - I've seen of Europa's surface is rough like the Arctic Ocean where ice sheets collide and push up the ice. You certainly would be hard-pressed to land any rough-field fighter jet on it - there just isn't any place (supposedly) that doesn't have bumps etc. The OP is correct. [[Special:Contributions/50.111.44.55|50.111.44.55]] ([[User talk:50.111.44.55|talk]]) 10:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Please sign your ^ posts. The comment about mountains is completely irrelevant. Which astronomers say the surface is flat like a billiard ball? Every informed scientific statement - and painting - I've seen of Europa's surface is rough like the Arctic Ocean where ice sheets collide and push up the ice. You certainly would be hard-pressed to land any rough-field fighter jet on it - there just isn't any place (supposedly) that doesn't have bumps etc. The OP is correct. [[Special:Contributions/50.111.44.55|50.111.44.55]] ([[User talk:50.111.44.55|talk]]) 10:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 10:05, 17 June 2021

Featured articleEuropa (moon) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starEuropa (moon) is part of the Jupiter series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 26, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 7, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
March 10, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 4, 2008Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
September 4, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
July 17, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
July 17, 2009Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

Gigantothermy

"The heating by radioactive decay, which is almost the same as in Earth (per kg of rock), cannot provide necessary heating in Europa because the volume-to-surface ratio is much lower due to the moon's smaller size."

I just think the sentence above should be reworded. Asuming the Earth and Europa to both be nearly spherical the volume-to-surface ratio would be the same regardless of size. Also, Europa's smaller surface area means it radiates less heat than earth if radioactive decay where the only heat source. JTTyler (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth has a dense atmosphere which helps hold heat in - and is closer to the sun - Europa bleeds heat into space much more rapidly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.150 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Europa

If there is life on Europa it will not be more advanced then the human race. If they were advanced, they'd have radio satellites. No radio satellites = no advanced life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.157.57 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have radio satellites, you have to have knowledge that there is something to put radio satellites into. There's no reason to assume any advanced life lurking on the ocean floor of Europa would even have a concept of space, let alone spacefaring. Serendipodous 10:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bigger "danger" if somebody will ever discover the life on Europa; several religious, theological groups will claim "it came from planet Earth"; they will put planet Earth into the center of the whole solar system, universe and claim that "everything came from Earth, according to their Abrahamic god", they will "prove" their theory with Panspermia; this is like the ethnocentric claim about Biblical historians who claim that "all people came from the Middle east, Israel because "first" human civilizations started there after the "Creation"... The biological question: did all animals, planets, fungi, eucaryotes, prokaryotes really evolve on planet Earth from some "common living prokaryote"? I think that humans will more or less figure out (and confirm) that we have "aliens" on that planet, which evolved on totally different worlds, than on our Earth... perhaps several of them (like are also chemotrophic organisms)came from "outside", from icy moons like Europa or Titan...

Potential for Extraterrestrial Life

In this chunk of info, there is/was a bunch of crap about chemosynthesis and discovering tube worms off the Galapagos. This really needs to be truncated down to barely more than a referral to another page. This page is about Europa chiefly, and it jumps a little too far off topic despite how interesting it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.166.33 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is very important, because it shows how life could exist on Europa, despite the inhospitable environment. Serendipodous 10:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, much of this info doesn't apply distinctly to Europa. In particular, the three middle paragraphs and pictures. It is largely about how life could exist in any extraterrestrial ocean (not even necessarily subsurface, but that's all we're concerned about in the solar system), and could/should be on the pages for several other objects, notably Ganymede. I.e., it is a digression. A reference to a section in a separate exo-life page (the astrobiology page seems the likely candidate), with this section just describing why Europa may be particularly suitable to that type of life: tidal heating, rocky core, O2 from radiation on ice, etc. Tbayboy (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This historical information is vital context; you can't just say that Europa's subsurface ocean could support life without sunlight and yet not explain why. Serendipodous 20:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not suggesting that. See "referral to another page" above, and my astrobiology suggestion. For example, the page on tigers doesn't have to explain the details of what it means to be a mammal, it just links to it. Similarly, the Europa page doesn't have to explain the details of hydrothermal vent life, just link to it; this page need only explain why Europa might have such life. Tbayboy (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EAS: Europa Avoidance Syndrome

There should be a section on how the Mars missions are seen as competitive (for funding) with a series of cancelled Europa missions (Europa, a moon of Jupiter, that has a confirmed saltwater ocean, is considered the most promising location for extraterrestrial life in the solar system). Yet the resulting funding "turf wars" have sidelined Europa surface exploration for years.

Ditto for Saturns' moon Encaladus, which has another confirmed saltwater ocean. Most resources go to Mars, while the ocean moons languish.

The funding politics, and controversies related to this, are certainly worth a section in the article.

64.134.236.20 (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I know there is a separate Mars exploration program. So, they do not directly compete. Ruslik_Zero 10:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes they do compete with each other! The space program funding pool is very limited now--
And so there is absolutely competition for limited funding dollars between the existing Mars program and potential life detecting missions to the ocean moons for the small pool of resources that are at play.
Not only that, there is a sense of very keen competition about who gets to claim the first discovery of extraterrestrial life--
The Mars mission, being well established, has a far more powerful "lobby" with which to acquire congressional funding, both within NASA, and directly from congress (congressional NASA funding implicitly earmarked for the Mars mission).
Even though the confirmed ocean moons, Europa and Enceladus are far more likely to harbor life than Mars; scientists who want to make the ocean moons a higher priority are far less organized and have far, far, far less funding than the Mars mission does.
The Mars mission is like an 800 pound gorilla-- and the science interests that want to send life-detecting probes directly to the ocean moons (now, not in 30 years), are like the world's smallest monkey-- the pygmy marmoset, which weighs only 3.5 ounces. Guess which side is winning the battle for funding...
2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they have had their instructions: "ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS—EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE".
By the way, I'm not a fan of "In popular culture" mentions, but this quote was from Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two. Kortoso (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're missing something...

How did Europa form? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now. :) Serendipodous 07:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goddidit!  :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page scared me

Did anyone else scroll down this page slowly and then freaked out by the rotating orbit GIF? I thought it was a bug or something at the bottom of my screen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.199.46 (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Temperature is Incorrect

The surface temperature is listed as -50 K. Since 0 K corresponds to absolute zero, this cannot be correct. The Johnston Archive suggests ~85 K ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/europa.html ). If anyone can confirm or improve this with a more vetted source, that would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.104.134 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not -50 K that's ~50 K. — Reatlas (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest replacing the "~" with the word "about".Kortoso (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organic material ?? Or organic compounds

There is a big difference. I'd be very suprised if there was organic material on the surface ...--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern - however - seems the phrase "organic material" is found "4" times in the original cited NASA reference; "organic compound" (or even the word "compound") is found "0" times (ie, not found at all) - please see => < ref name="NASA-20131211">Cook, Jia-Rui c. (December 11, 2013). "Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa". NASA. Retrieved December 11, 2013.</ref> - based on this original cited NASA ref, edited back from "organic compound" to =>

"organic material" (according to NASA)

hope this is ok - please let me know if otherwise of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

i know something wrong Hnndcfgn (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well what is it? Serendipodous 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added or altered.
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest --

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the first moons discovered ... why is that not mentioned in the opening para ?

Every time this is mentioned in the lede, someone edits it out. Some kind of conspiracy ?? It is extremely significant, that after our moon, it (with Io) was the first to be found ! --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Suppose you are trying to discover traffic lights. On 7 January, you see a patch of green in the distance that cyclically changes through amber and red before returning to green. Aha! Traffic light discovery, you think. But the next day you conduct close-up observations, and you find that they were actually two adjacent synchronized traffic lights: let's call them "Signal" and "Stoppy". Since you only recognized the traffic lights as individual entities on 8 January, it doesn't make sense to call 7 January the discovery date for either Signal or Stoppy alone. This is essentially what happened with Io and Europa: on 7 January 1610, they were observed together as one single point of light, and were only seen to be separate the next day. Additionally, Ganymede and Callisto were seen unambiguously on 7 January 1610, so Io and Europa alone weren't the first to be found. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me then. What other moon was found before them ..... and after The Moon ?????? I don't really care WHEN they were discovered. All I care about is that they were the first moons found to orbit another planet !!! Not even the Galilean moons article mentions this. Basically I want to know this and what it was named for. Instead we get a bunch of fluff about flybys in the 70s. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as Double Sharp points out, they were not really discovered on 7-1-1610, they are not the first ones discovered after the Moon. Ganymede and Callisto are. A third point of light was seen that day, but it cannot be said to be either Europa or Io. --JorisvS (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Here's the chronology of the first few moons discovered, presented in a list.
  • Moon: Sometime in prehistory, when one night, someone decided to look up
  • Ganymede and Callisto: 7 January 1610. A third point of light was seen, but it cannot really be said to be one of Europa or Io.
  • Europa and Io: 8 January 1610.
  • Titan: 25 March 1655
  • ...etc.
And as for what Io and Europa were named for: it's already in the Io article, while I added it to the lede of Europa's. Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion at Talk:Life on Europa

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Life on Europa about whether to merge Life on Europa into Europa (moon). Any reasoned comments would be helpful. A2soup (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 2 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



– Europa the moon is FAR more of the primary topic than anything else named Europa. People know about an icy moon of Jupiter with water beneath its surface. They may not know its NAME, but they know it's there. Not many people know anything about Europa the mythological figure. The moon is clearly the primary topic here, so the Europa page, currently a disambig page, should be moved to Europa (disambiguation), with this page moved to Europa. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thin ice/thick ice debate

The following paper, Empirical constraints on the salinity of the europan ocean and implications for a thin ice shell, by Kevin Hand and Christopher Chyba, uses magnetic field data from Galileo to put a constraint on subsurface ocean salinity. They conclude that a) only a relatively thin shell of ice (< 15 km, with a best fit at 4 km) can fit the data and b) only very high (magnesium sulfate) salinity can readily explain the very high amplitude response (0.97 +/ 0.02) observed by Galileo. In particular, adding a solid conducting core and mantle to the model has no appreciable effect compared to that of the ocean itself.

This should probably be worked into the article, which currently presents the thin ice/thick ice debate largely in terms of surface feature analysis. Eniagrom (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 2017 paper - http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mop/files/2018/07/571-586-with-Images.pdf 50.111.27.136 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Information on "spewing water jets

This article from BBC was posted today in regards to the new discovery of "water plumes" on Europa. Would it be worth adding this information to the page, or does it fall under WP:RECENT? Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth a mention. But that article is not so definite! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been added today, as an "additional evidence". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

astrobio link is dead, it looks like that site no longer hosts the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habitability claims out of date

The article's section on habitability potential currently says that "The energy from tidal flexing could never support an ecosystem in Europa's ocean as large and diverse as the photosynthesis-based ecosystem on Earth's surface." But the citation is from 1999, and more recent studies have questioned it. particularly those showing that subduction of oxygen-rich ice from the surface could lead to high oxygen levels in the ocean below. I think this should be mentioned. Serendipodous 21:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Agreed, it's out of date. Also there's the new research, that it could have as much hydrogen per square centimeter as Earth's ocean, even though there'd be less energy available for hydrothermal vents, due to cracks that would appear in its core as it cools down.
[1] and and [https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6514
"According to Vance, researchers previously speculated that volcanism is paramount for creating a habitable environment in Europa's ocean. If such activity is not occurring in its rocky interior, the thinking goes, the large flux of oxidants from the surface would make the ocean too acidic, and toxic, for life. "But actually, if the rock is cold, it's easier to fracture. This allows for a huge amount of hydrogen to be produced by serpentinization that would balance the oxidants in a ratio comparable to that in Earth's oceans," he said."
"My modest thought about what kind of life might be at Europa involves the kinds of things that we see at heads of thermal vents [on Earth], mainly microorganisms,"But in my bolder moments I wonder if Europa could have the kind of vigorous biosphere that Earth has that supports larger forms of life,"
There's a bit of a mystery with the hydrogen peroxide that they found less than expected for that oxygen hypothesis, which suggested an oxygen poor ocean after all, but on the other hand there is evidence of more oxygen in the ice of the crust than expected which could be compatible with it being oxygen rich. This paper however is from 2013. [2]
"Compared to models for seafloor production of reductants, such as methane and hydrogen sulfide, which yield ~3 × 109 moles per year delivered to the ocean, it appears that our new results for peroxide on Europa could lead to an ocean limited by oxidant availability. This conclusion also depends strongly on the global geographic distribution of O2, which may have concentrations significantly larger than peroxide"
I think it is fair to say the jury is out on this one so far, from what I've read. Robert Walker (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothness claim should be qualified

This is the statement "Europa has the smoothest surface of any known solid object in the Solar System"

That's true as seen from the distance. Nothing else is as smooth and round by way of the solid objects, because its craters relax into the ice and the surface is very young. But close up, on the meter scale, it is very rough indeed at every scale observed, far rougher than, say, Mars.

From an article in Scientific American, Feb. 17, 2017: [3]

“Although mission planners have yet to map Europa at very high resolution, the lower-resolution images they have already seen show a topography rugged enough to give them nightmares, says Britney Schmidt, a planetary scientist at Georgia Tech and study co-author. 'Icy surfaces on Earth are incredibly complex, and Europa is rough on every scale we’ve ever observed it, so finding a flat spot might be impossible,' she says. 'It’s hard not to be worried about that. Mars has been difficult for us—and it’s way flatter than Europa.' ”

Robert Walker (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, Europa has no 'mountains' - Mars does. Europa has cracks in the ice where jagged edges do indeed rise for many meters, but I'd take some exception with this particular comment/astronomer over the overwhelming majority who state otherwise?
Please sign your ^ posts. The comment about mountains is completely irrelevant. Which astronomers say the surface is flat like a billiard ball? Every informed scientific statement - and painting - I've seen of Europa's surface is rough like the Arctic Ocean where ice sheets collide and push up the ice. You certainly would be hard-pressed to land any rough-field fighter jet on it - there just isn't any place (supposedly) that doesn't have bumps etc. The OP is correct. 50.111.44.55 (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europa (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

surface radiation

The type of radiation and the various strengths of it (alpha particles, beta, neutron, EM) should be added to the article. I think I've read some fairly reasonable predictions of this based on the observed data. Does anyone have an RS? 50.111.3.150 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four mentioned radiation types only electron (beta) component is significant on Europa. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so, a Reliable Source showing the average strengths of the various types of radiation at the surface should be readily available and stated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.16.163 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

habitability thing

would creating a new article called Life on Europa be a good idea? idk :VAzpineapple (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. There would be almost zero RS information on something that is pure, unadulterated wishful thinking/speculation.50.111.24.158 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"habitable" in the lede

" ... whether Europa could be habitable" - let's find another word here - whether or not there are sea salts has nothing to do with human "colonization" - the article cite is not referring to that, but whether native life might exist under the ice crust. Thanks. 50.111.44.55 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]