Jump to content

Talk:Planetary science/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

poseidology

How can you have "poseidology" etc. - the term implies "geology" of Neptune - yet the planet is entirely gaseous.

planetology

I (weirdo) have never heard the term "planetology". "Planetary astronomy" or "planetary science" is WAY more common, and I think the page should be moved to one of those with a redirect. --zandperl 20:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree; Although "planetology" is used sometimes, "planetary science" is much more common (also considerably more common than "planetary astronomy").--Pharos 05:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move 2005

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Planetology → Planetary science

Planetary science is the much more common term.--Pharos 07:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Support. Planetary Science on Google: 536,000 hits.[1] Planetology on Google: 77,900 hits. [2] Also of note...Planetary Scientist on Google: 34,600 hits. [3] Planetologist on Google: 3620 hits. [4]. However, my only reservation is that this article really needs to be expanded. —ExplorerCDT 16:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Insanely Strong Oppose: I see no necessary reason for this. I'm not more inclined to accept "Planetary science" instead of Planetology as I am
  • All these fields are named after their proper title! Leave it at Planetology for consistencies sake. Consistent naming of fields is more important than what google says. Cburnett 20:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "Insane" fair descriptor of opposition. "Planetary science" isn't some sort of cute anglicized term invented to interest kids in the subject; it's what researchers who actually study planets, natural satellites, asteroids and comets call their work. "Planetology" is used by almost noone, one major reason being these researchers don't just study planets. Who are you (or, more to the point, us as Wikipedia) to say these scientists are wrong? Oh, and btw, Earth science is not the same as geology.--Pharos 20:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Zoologists don't just study zoos either. I don't just think of Planets when i hear "Planetology". I'll add my voice to opposition of this move, as long as the redirect remains.--ZayZayEM 00:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Zoologists don't study zoos, they study animals, which is what the "zoo" affix means (from Greek zoin).--Pharos 23:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • For that matter, it's zo-ology, not zoo-ology. ADH (t&m) 12:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've heard both terms, considering your comments regarding Geology are we sure that they define the same subject? --Neo 20:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you are addressing me; I made the point above that they do not (not that it's directly relevant).--Pharos 21:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear... I meant In a manner analogous to the different meanings between geology and earth science, do the terms planetology and planetary science indicate the same, or different, fields of study? --Neo 00:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that they mean pretty much the same thing, only that one form is distinctly more common. I also note that the term "comparative planetology", describing an important sub-topic in the field (usually describing differences between actual planets), is a significant proportion of the google hits for "planetology", but there are far fewer hits for "comparative planetary science", probably largely because the former sounds better.--Pharos 23:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Pharos, "insanely strong" is a poke at using "strong" as if the vote counts more than one. Regarding geology: look at Geology as it specifically states "is the science and study of the Earth". Regardless, my point stands that moving this one article makes it break the seemingly consistent naming of fields. Having found a list of ologies, I randomly picked them and looked on wikipedia and they are all under their -ology name. I see no reason (common name not good enough) to break this consistency. This is what redirects are for. Cburnett 21:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support this, largely based on the google results (which, admittedly, is not necessarily the best way to decide such things), however I am willing to yield to the experts. Can anyone claim to be an expert here? Is there a planetologist or a planetary scientist in the house, or does someone know one? -R. fiend 19:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not the policy of Wikipedia to use incorrect or (in this case) uncommon terms for the sake of consistency. In reality, English and the real world are inconsistent sometimes. I agree with the policy that says we should support current usage rather than try to force personally favored terms. --Sketchee 23:32, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Concur with Sketchee. this is an encylopedia, not an experiment in systematic classification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no reason for the move other than Google fetishism. -- Naive cynic 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not google fetishism, this is reality fetishism. "Planetary science" is what the great majority of researchers actually working in this field call it, quite independent of google.--Pharos 00:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Sciencedirect gives 40 published academic articles for "planetology", 383 for "Planetary science". Rd232 08:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Naming conventions no-brainer. Rd232 08:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. "Planetology" sounds nicer, but a search Google Scholar and CiteSeer gives the following results: Planetology: 5,480 (Google), 19 (CiteSeer); Planetary science: 39,600 (Google), 82 (CiteSeer). This shows that both are in use, but leaves no doubt as to which is the more common. -- Itai 09:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Where are our librariologists? ADH (t&m) 12:21, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 06:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Planetary geology

I think that the subject of planetary science should actually be called planetary geology, since it is a type of geology. That name would be more specific, too instead of just a science it would be a type of science (geology). I have also researched planetary geology and found that many sites use that wording. But really, in all honesty, who cares what its called? We all know it is the study of planets and as long as we understand that concept, its name doesnt' really matter all that much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.135 (talk • contribs)

Planetary science is sometimes a type of geology, but not always. The scientists who study planetary atmospheres, planetary dynamics, and the bulk chemistry of the inner solar system would be miffed if you called them all geologists. But they are still planetary scientists.--Will.i.am 10:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Will.i.am is right. Jespley 21:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Category - move or rename?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Good move - now what about the Category:Planetology? It needs renaming also. I missed the vote, but planetology sounds too much akin to astrology to me :-) -Vsmith 15:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Planetary science, planetary geology, and planetary astronomy.

I have to admit that I was somewhat bothered by the introduction to this topic; it is way too biased towards "astronomy". In fact, both planetary astronomy and planetery geology are part of "planetary science". In todays modern word, astronomy has very little to do with planetery science, as most measurements are made by spacecraft, not astronomers using telescopes. Also, most reasearch about the planets today has a strong geological bias. The disciplines of "remote sensing", "geophysics", "geomorphology", "atmospheric science", etc., all try to decipher the geologic evolution of the planet.

Perhaps I am nitpicking, but when I tell people that I study the Moon, they naturally assume that I am an astronomer. Does analyzing gravity fields, topography, basaltic volcanism, planetary differentiation, and impact cratering make me an astronomer? I don't think so. Lunokhod 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Specialized terms"

"When the discipline concerns itself with a celestial body in particular, a specialised term is used, as shown in the table below (only heliology, geology, selenology, and areology are currently in common use):

This table is REALY FUNNY. NO ONE USES THESE TERMS. In my humble opinion, it is really bad practice to replace the prefix "geo" by another term for the other planetary bodies. This horendous practice started with the Moon, by using the prefix "seleno". Since the Moon occupies a special place in planetery science and the exploration of the solar system, this was understandable. However, the situation quicky got out of control, when new "words" were invented for the lunar geothermal gradient, earthquakes, geology, geomorthology, geoid, etc. Since the first spacecraft visited the Moon, we have investigated numerous objects, such as Io, Europa, Ganymede, Titan, Iapetis, Eros, etc. Now what should we call the geological studies of these bodies??? Io-ology?

I have no objection to keeping the table, as it is really funny. Seriously. However, I think that we need to preface this with something a bit stronger than "only heliology, geology, selenology, and areology are currently in common use". Indeed, areology is not that common. Lunokhod 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur! To tell you the truth, I've never heard selenology or areology used in practice. And I work with plenty of scientists who study the Moon and Mars. My google search says 26,000 hits for selenology and 140,000 hits for "lunar science".--Will.i.am 02:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is almost 20%! P=)  ~Kaimbridge~14:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be looked at by someone in the know

I've tagged this as needing verification. Much of this article is curiously worded, I think it would benefit from being looked at to make sure the correct terms are used everywhere. I've done some copyediting already but my knowledge of the field is limited. Rpvdk (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparative planetary science section

Does this section make sense? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New page? or edit existing page?

I am with NASA's Planetary Science Division and have accepted the job of presenting NASA's planetary science on wikipedia. After looking at the existing Planetary Science entry it seems to me inappropriate to edit that page. Instead it would make sense to me to prepare a new page titled 'Planetary Science at NASA' and use it to present the missions and research and analysis programs of NASA in this area, and then link it to the Planetary Science page.

I have never prepared or edited for wikipedia, nor do I know it's established etiquette. I am seeking advice. Thanks in advance. Mrgfan (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reorganisation plan

Okay. This article needs a significant amount of work. I'm proposing reorganisation along the following lines:

  • History: can probably scrounge a small section from the existing material, but needs more for certain. Particularly, a ref for when 'planetary science' as a term was first used.

Take out the existing first-level headings.

  • Research fields: the disciplines and what they do
  • Experimental work: space missions, rovers - not exhaustive but some highlights - lab situations
  • Short theoretical section (theoretical planetary science is good so reference that)
  • Comparative planetary science: earth analogues

Since planetary scientist redirects here, I think we should also have

  • Professional path: education involved, the major conferences, journals, major institutions (since the field is small), which will clean up the external links, and professional societies.

And finally:

  • Clean up the See also.
  • Put the unlinked ref list into a 'further reading' section.

Iridia (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Work completed. Could definitely use some more modern information that doesn't always have examples from the Apollo days, but at least now there's a good base and structure to work on. Help adding references would be appreciated. Iridia (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Further reading (here for now, for future reintegration)

  • Basilevsky, A. T.,& J. W. Head (1995): Regional and global stratigraphy of Venus: a preliminary assessment and implications for the geological history of Venus Planetary and Space Science 43/12, pp. 1523-1553
  • Basilevsky, A. T.,& J. W. Head (1998): The geologic history of Venus: A stratigraphic view JGR-Planets Vol. 103 , No. E4 , p. 8531
  • Basilevsky, A. T.,& J. W. Head (2002): Venus: Timing and rates of geologic activity Geology; November 2002; v. 30; no. 11; p. 1015–1018;
  • Frey, H. V., E. L. Frey, W. K. Hartmann & K. L. T. Tanaka (2003): Evidence for buried "Pre-Noachian" crust pre-dating the oldest observed surface units on Mars Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIV 1848
  • Gradstein, F. M., James G. Ogg, Alan G. Smith, Wouter Bleeker & Lucas J. Lourens (2004): A new Geologic Time Scale, with special reference to Precambrian and Neogene Episodes, Vol. 27, no. 2.
  • Hansen V. L. & Young D. A. (2007): Venus's evolution: A synthesis. Special Paper 419: Convergent Margin Terranes and Associated Regions: A Tribute to W.G. Ernst: Vol. 419, No. 0 pp. 255–273.
  • Hartmann, W. K. & Neukum, G. (2001): Cratering Chronology and the Evolution of Mars. Space Science Reviews, 96, 165–194.
  • Hartman, W. K. (2005): Moons and Planets. 5th Edition. Thomson Brooks/Cole.
  • Head J. W. & Basilevsky, A. T (1999): A model for the geological history of Venus from stratigraphic relationship: comparison geophysical mechanisms LPSC XXX #1390
  • Mutch T.A., Arvidson R., Head J., Jones K.,& Saunders S. (1977): The Geology of Mars Princeton University Press
  • Offield, T. W. & Pohn, H. A. (1970): Lunar crater morphology and relative-age determiantion of lunar geologic units U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper No. 700-C. pp. C153-C169. Washington;
  • Phillips, R. J., R. F. Raubertas, R. E. Arvidson, I. C. Sarkar, R. R. Herrick, N. Izenberg, and R. E. Grimm (1992): Impact craters and Venus resurfacing history, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 15,923-15,948
  • Scott, D. H. & Carr, M. H. (1977): The New Geologic Map of Mars (1:25 Million Scale). Technical report.
  • Scott, D. H. & Tanaka, K. L. (1986): Geological Map of the Western Equatorial Region of Mars (1:15,000,000), USGS.
  • Shoemaker, E.M., & Hackman, R.J., (1962):, Stratigraphic basis for a lunar time scale, in *Kopal, Zdenek, and Mikhailov, Z.K., eds., (1960): The Moon — Intern. Astronom. Union Symposium 14, Leningrad, 1960, Proc.: New York, Academic Press, p. 289- 300.
  • Spudis, P.D. & J.E. Guest, (1988):. Stratigraphy and geologic history of Mercury, in Mercury, F. Vilas, C.R. Chapman, and M.S. Matthews, eds., Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 118-164.
  • Spudis, P. D.& Strobell, M. E. (1984): New Identification of Ancient Multi-Ring Basins on Mercury and Implications for Geologic Evolution. LPSC XV, P. 814-815
  • Spudis, P. (2001): The geological history of mercury. Mercury: Space Environment, Surface, and Interior, LPJ Conference, #8029.
  • Tanaka K. L. (ed.) (1994): The Venus Geologic Mappers’ Handbook. Second Edition. Open–File Report 94-438 NASA.
  • Tanaka K. L. 2001: The Stratigraphy of Mars LPSC 32, #1695, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1695.pdf
  • Tanaka K. L. & J. A. Skinner (2003): Mars: Updating geologic mapping approaches and the formal stratigraphic scheme. Sixth International Conference on Mars #3129
  • Wagner R. J., U. Wolf, & G. Neukum (2002): Time-stratigraphy and impact cratering chronology of Mercury. Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIII 1575
  • Wilhelms D. E. (1970): Summary of Lunar Stratigraphy — Telescopic Observations. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Papers No. 599-F., Washington;
  • Wilhelms D. (1987): Geologic History of the Moon, US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1348, http://ser.sese.asu.edu/GHM/
  • Wilhelms D. E.& McCauley J. F. (1971): Geologic Map of the Near Side of the Moon. USGS Maps No. I-703, Washington; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridia (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Planetary Equilibrium Temperature

This text was recently deleted from thermodynamic equilibrium, but maybe someone here knows where it should go: 

<!-- note that "Equilibrium Temperature" redirects here, which makes this the most relevant place for this. -->
:<math>\sigma\cdot T_{\mathrm{p}}^4 = \frac{\sigma\cdot T_{\ast}^4}{4\pi\cdot d^2}\cdot\frac{4\pi\cdot R_{\ast}^2}{4\pi\cdot R_{\mathrm{p}}^2}\cdot\pi\cdot R_{\mathrm{p}}^2(1-A_{\mathrm{p}})</math><ref>C. Barbieri, 2007</ref>

David Hollman (Talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion discussion - Modern Mars habitability

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability

Robert Walker (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Is planetary astronomy a branch of planetary science?

Different disciplines, surely. Most planetary scientists are geologists who publish in geological journals. Serendipodous 07:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Astronomy is the study of celestial objects. Planets are celestial objects. So both planetary science and planetary astronomy are a subset of astronomy, by definition. When considering sub-fields, one could indeed say that planetary astronomy, planetary geophysics, planetary geochemistry, planetary geology, planetary geodesy, etc. are all branches of the planetary sciences. It's not clear to me that the previous comment is accurate. The study of planetary surfaces is only one of the many topics that fall under planetary science. In addition to surfaces, planetary scientists and astronomers study the interiors, atmospheres, magnetospheres, rings/satellites, and formation and evolution of planetary systems. It's possible but not at all guaranteed that most practitioners are geologists and it's possible but not at all guaranteed that most articles are published in geology journals. Many planetary science articles are published in Science, Nature, Icarus, the Astronomical/Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, Planetary and Space Science, etc. It would be interesting to see actual data on the proportion of geology vs. non-geology practitioners/articles in planetary science. JeanLucMargot (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_science/Archive_1&oldid=1181367440"