This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This study was presented this summer 2017 with the aim at developing a mission concept to those planets, and it states that ice giants Uranus and Neptune are, by mass, about 65% water and other so-called "ices"; the terminology is "supercritical liquid water". I browsed both Urarus and Neptune articles in Wikipedia and I did not read anything similar suggesting surface water nor such % mass. I'm going to leave this 'on your desk' and am going to let more competent editors decide if this is a required update. The complete report is at [1]. -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wow. looks awesome - and relevant - from quick glance. I myself am busy elsewhere in life atm, so don't count on me to include anything soon, but thanks for this post anyway.
If what you write about surface waters, etc. is true, I am quite sure though that there are other more profound articles about it out there already, as this is "just" planning material, not basic research about Neptune. I believe the liquid water aspect is discussed in articles about Ice Giants in general; I vaguely remembers having read about it some time ago. RhinoMind (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the astrobio.net article is misleading. Other articles on the internet describe the mantle (which is apparently what is meant by 'surface oceans' in the astrobio article) in totally different terms - it is a hot (several thousand degrees) slush of water and methane, which in no way resembles the usual concept of oceans. The other article (the actual NASA document) basically indicates that the internal structure of Neptune is almost totally unknown. Computer models don't result in the three-layer model, and the computer models don't agree with the observed fluxes from the planet. 66.41.99.200 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The figure caption of the image in the Observations section is not fully correct. ESA (the European Space Agency) as cited there had nothing to do with this picture. Instead, it was ESO (the Euroean Southern Observatory), as evidenced by the summary of the image.95.90.232.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new values of brightest and faintest apparent magnitude in the ‘infobox’ were reported in a peer-reviewed journal article that includes updated equations for computing planetary magnitudes. Those formulas will be used to predict magnitudes for future issues of The Astronomical Almanac published by the U.S. Naval Observatory and Her Majesty’s Nautical Almanac Office. The equations were solved at daily intervals over long periods of time in order to determine the magnitude extremes. As noted in the journal article, Neptune began to brighten around 1980 and continued doing so until about 2000 when the brightness leveled off. The faintest magnitude in the ‘infobox’ is from the period before 1980 and the brightest magnitude is for that after 2000. The paper in Astronomy and Computing can be located at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2018.08.002.