Talk:Exploration of Jupiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Exploration of Jupiter has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Exploration of Jupiter 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.
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Solar System / Jupiter (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-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 Taskforce Jupiter.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

I'm confused...[edit] this:

"Reaching Jupiter from Earth requires a delta-v of 9.2 km/s,[1] which is comparable to the 9.7 km/s delta-v needed to reach low Earth orbit.[2] Fortunately, gravity assists through planetary flybys..."

The reference says "Starting out from a low Earth orbit, a spacecraft needs to increase its speed by 9 kilometers per second (19,440 mph) in order to reach Jupiter" (my italics). Also, as it stands, the word "fortunately" doesn't make sense. It implies that acheiving the stated delta-v for Jupiter is difficult, and yet if it's the same as required for LEO then it can't be that difficult as that operation is very routine. Possibly the difficulty is because the 9.2 km/s is on top of the delta-v needed for LEO, as the reference seems to be saying. Maybe someone who understands this could clarify the text in the article in these respects. Matt 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Launching a spacecraft on a direct Jupiter trajectory does requires a great deal of energy. In 2 cases Galileo and Cassini, the on pad mass of the spacecraft were too great to fly a direct trajectory to Jupiter. In other words, no launch system at the time could provide enough delta-V to make a direct flight. If it wasn't for the possibility of gravity assists maneuvers these spacecraft would never have reached Jupiter. So the word Fortunately makes sense in the sense we can still reach Jupiter with a high mass probe using gravity assists.

-- Ganesha (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Laplace This mission is more real tha ice monn mission and is not in.
    not sure it is actually more than a proposal at this point [1][2] Nergaal (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
and the other is canceled mission which was not even phase B.--Stone (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • technical: the radiation level around jupiter is one of the key problems and it si not mentioned. --Stone (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Danke! Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Exploration of Jupiter/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hi. I peer reviewed this article because an editor wished to take it to FAC. In course of the peer review, I discovered major problems with the use of sources. These are the problems I found:

  • Note 1. Source does not give 9.2 figure.
It gives the rounded value to 9 km/s [3]. n
 Done I see you've changed the text to "about 9 km/s." Good. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 5. Dead link - needs to be removed and another source found.
 Not done Still needs another source. This is not esoteric info and there are other sources that give it, so there's no reason to have a dead link. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 6 - a. Cites information only partially given on website. Figure of 570,000 not given in source.
 Done You've fixed this. Good. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 6 - b. Source does not even mention Thebe.
 Not done Changed, but now the note is given as a citation for the statement about Adrastea and Metis, neither of which are mentioned in the source. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 6 - c. Source does not even mention Europa. Wording and statements appear to be taken from uncited website.
 Done No note 6 - c in current article. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) -- Source now given (note 12) does contain cited info. Ricardiana (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 10. Link didn't work for me.
 Done Fine now. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 14. Source does not even mention Himalia or Elara.
 DoneOK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 17. Source does not even mention space debris.
 Done OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 21 - a. Source does not even mention Amalthea or Comet Shoemaker-Levey 9!
 Not done Your source for Comet S-L is OK. However, your info about Amalthea and the eight-year study beginning in the 1990s is now cited to an article from 1892!! That's completely unacceptable. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ~ see note 27 in this version: [4] Ricardiana (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 21 - b. Source does not mention Europa.
they actually do.
 Done It does now. The version here [5] didn't. Ricardiana (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 21 - c. Citation is to this statement: "Major scientific results of the Galileo mission include" - followed by a number of findings not mentioned in your source.
 Done OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note 23. Does not mention wind - at all!
 Not done I clicked through every tab on the cited web page and searched for wind. "Wind" came up 0 of 0 times on each tab. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
that is because the website got updated from when this was a GAN. Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
added a new ref. n
  • Note 30. Source doesn't say anything about funding, or competition for funding; it only lists other projects. Your conclusion is original research, which is not acceptable.
 Not done Nothing's changed here. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
removed statement
  • Note 31. Source does not mention Ganymede or proposed Ganymede orbiter.
 Not done PDF source does mention the orbiter, but appears to be someone's PowerPoint presentation - not a reliable source. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
the reference is entiteled "OPF Study Team (2008-08-28). "Outer Planet Flagship Mission: Briefing to the OPAG Steering Committee" The sentence discusses a proposal which is hosted under these guys, and you are saying that their proposal is not reliable? If I am proposing you to stop being a useless/careless GAR reviewer would that make the proposal unrelable? Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Dude, stop with the personal attacks, please. I know the PowerPoint is hosted on a .edu site, but that doesn't impress me. It's not like this is cutting edge info that only these people know about it - it's readily available - see "ganymede+orbiter"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ned=us&btnGt=Show+Timeline, for example. Ricardiana (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
added a nasa ref

Because of the unacceptable use of sources, I believe that this article fails Criterion 2, that articles be factually accurate and verifiable. Ricardiana (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

asides from the last three, most of the issues should be fixed now. the latter 3 are websites about future planned missions, websites which seem to have been updated/trimmed since the GAN. Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then they need to be replaced. In any case, there are still issues, most notably citing information about the late twentieth-century to a late nineteenth-century source. I'm delisting this as a Good Article. Feel free to nominate it again when these issues are resolved. Ricardiana (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wohoo! I don't quite understand exactly how is this supposed to work. I have made an initial reply a couple of days ago and your reply is time is up? You should better go back and read the instructions for GAR and you will see that #4 says
"Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The [[{{{1}}}]], an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/{{{1}}}/|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. template can be used for this purpose, by placing ArticleName has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. on talk pages."
Nergaal (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You had time to respond, as evidenced by the fact that you did, repeatedly - just inadequately. I mean, come on - adding a source from the nineteenth century to "cite" information about the 1990s? I did notify both you and the GA reviewer, as you well know, or would if you had checked. The article is delisted. Now that I look at it, yes, a week is suggested, which I admit I didn't notice before, but your attitude, coupled with "fixes" to the article that simply repeat the same problems, are not encouraging. Feel free to re-nominate the article, as I said. Ricardiana (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I just misread the sentence and I though it refers to the discovery of the satellite - which is what the reference would have cited. You probably need to check on Wikipedia:Assume good faith, or "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia", before you haste yourself into making conclusions. Nergaal (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I assumed bad faith. I simply said that your source doesn't contain the information you say it did. I don't really care why that is; it just is. Ricardiana (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite your incivility, you have until the 26th. Ricardiana (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly out of your reach so I think it is probably better if this gets moved from an individual reassessment to a community one. And by the way, stepping on other user's toes is also a form of incivility. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Did you notice that I reverted the delisting, per your request? Perhaps not. In any case, as we obviously disagree, I have put the article up for community re-assessment, as you wish. Ricardiana (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Colonization of Jupiter[edit]

As long as we're discussing manned exploration, how about moving material from that article to this one? That article has never been sourced and I would prefer a small number of sourced sentences to a large, unsourced paragraph that basically amounted to wishful thinking. Serendipodous 09:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Exploration and colonization of Jupiter ? Ruslik_Zero 12:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge into the newly created section on manned exploration: i.e. Manned exploration and colonization (and leave the title in its present state since the colonization part is minor). Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
OK; I've merged it. But it's going to have to either be sourced or radically trimmed. Serendipodous 16:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the comet actually part of this article?[edit]

Every time I open the article I get question marks about how the comet fits into the scope of the article. One solution is to throw it out completely and put a sentence or two in the Galileo section, while the other one would be to expand that section into an Earth-based observation and exploration one. And speaking of this: is Hubble-looking-at-Jupiter within the scope of this article? Nergaal (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But please let's wait until the reassessment is over before making any more changes. Serendipodous 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Expanding the remit to telescopes would perhaps go beyond the concept of "exploration", so I think the best option is to merge the appropriate info with the Galileo section and ditch the rest. Serendipodous 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that this is done[edit]

Is it actually FAC-able? To what I recall, the only section that may need more careful expansion/checking/cleanup is the paragraph of Major scientific results of the Galileo mission include:. Nergaal (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

query: is this actually true? Can't Mars be used as a slingshot too?

Before spacecraft[edit]

What were the best images of Jupiter before Pioneer 10 imaged it up-close? --JorisvS (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


Are we in American or British English here? --John (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess we are going with USEng and the one "centre" was an error. --John (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exploration of Jupiter. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)