Jump to content

Talk:Voyager 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateVoyager 2 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleVoyager 2 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.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 10, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 17, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 30, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Voyager 2 has been transmitting data for more than 46 years, making it the oldest active space probe in history?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 11, 2018.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 20, 2004, August 24, 2004, August 25, 2004, August 25, 2005, August 25, 2006, August 25, 2009, and August 20, 2010.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Please check a source that looks funny

[edit]

The "From Engineering To Big Science" source (currently #5) looks funny / off because it has a long segment written with it. Is this meant to be in the article? Would other editors please check this? Astrolabe 150c (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Cambalachero (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Voyager 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Herald (talk · contribs) 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Lead
  • Seems fine. The "as of April 2024" may be updated with the current numbers, but there's a hidden note of not doing so more than once a month, so I didn't touch anything. Is the idea to update it only when updating the month, to do it at some certain day, or some other precise system?
There was a discussion regarding the updation and a consensus was reached for the same. As of now, there is no certain date that is fixed for updation, but it is only for a reference point. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Replaced the gallery with File:MHW-RTG.gif.
Removed
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Replaced link
Fixed. Added information and source.
Source added
Replaced link
Removed. Superfluous.
Fixed
Replaced with the latter.

On a general overview, the article has way too many images. Try to be a bit more selective.

Yes, I agree. But given the nature of the project, I think the images enhance encyclopedic value of the article. If you don't agree, will a 5 image per section max criteria work? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have trimmed down the number of images in various sections. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • You should link to Syzygy (astronomy), a planetary alignment.
  • Saturn has many moons. Why was the study of Titan so important that they even considered sending both Voyagers there?
  • Why link "The Earth" instead of just "Earth"?
  • "Scientific instruments" has an unresolved maintenance tag
Done. Added a couple of sentence on Titan's importance and fixed the tag.
Mission profile
  • Section is only a pair of giant images and a table, with no text.
It was a section mistake. Mission profile is a level 2 heading and the following sub sections are level 3. The tables and images are summaries for the entire mission profile. Fixed.
Launch and trajectory
  • First paragraph has no references
  • File:Voyager 2 path.svg is unreadable at article size
  • File:Voyager 2 velocity vs distance from sun.svg, the first sentence is enough. The second is clarification and can go in a note, to reduce bloating.
  • Is it appropriate to place the images in the middle of the text? Why not at the end of the subsections, as below?
  • The second paragraph is only one line and a half long, and half of it is about Voyager 1.
  • "a complication arose" is a bit redundant, just explain directly what happened.
  • The paragraph ends with no reference
Done. In the second paragraph, it is a comparison of intial orbits of both the spacecrafts, which caused the differences in the arrival time and hence, subsequent changes in the mission profile. They are mentioned in the sub sections ahead.
Encounter with Jupiter
  • Exploration of Jupiter is about all explorations of Jupiter, not just the Voyager 2. Use {{See also}} or {{Further}}, not {{Main}}.
  • The article is already using way too many images, but this is a bit over the top. 8 images below and 2 to the sides, 10 images in a section!
  • Link to Volcanism on Io
Fixed. Took out some images, since they are explained in Voyager program.
Encounter with Saturn
  • Again, "Exploration of..." is not a proper main article
  • Again, way too many images.
  • There are photos of Enceladus, Tethys, Titan, Iapetus, but not a single word about what did Voyager 2 saw when they were studied.
Fixed. Removed extra images since they are described in the program article. Not needed here, IMO. Added info about Titan flyby.
Encounter with Uranus
  • Again, "Exploration of..." is not a proper main article
  • Given the discussion about Uranus' axis, a link to Uranus#Axial_tilt may be appropriate.
  • Unlink "hypothesis", just a common word.
Done.
Encounter with Neptune
Done
Interstellar mission
  • "In 1992, Voyager 2 observed the nova V1974 Cygni in the far-ultraviolet." Single-sentence paragraph. Nothing to add to it?
  • There is an unresolved "As of?" tag
  • 7th paragraph has no references
  • First they announce that Voyager 2 would reach interstellar space in 2016, and then report it in 2018. Was it a delay, or did they incorrectly measured the distances and speeds involved?
  • "As a failsafe measure, the probe is also programmed to autonomously reset its orientation to point towards Earth, which would have occurred by October 15." No reference
Done. Removed the uncited sections because I couldn't see the relevance of it. The 7th paragraph was removed because the data was old and there's no point describing the 2012 distances now, along with the comparison of Voyager 1. The delay was to reach a consensus on the sensor readings. I have added a few more details onto the paragraph.
Reductions in capabilities
  • Many entries in the table are not referenced.
  • We're in 2024. 2016 and 2020 are in the past, so "approx" is not appropriate. If those things happened in those years, remove it. If the happened in another year or not yet, fix it.
  • "The probe is expected to keep transmitting weak radio messages until at least the mid-2020s, more than 48 years after it was launched." Does NASA have further plans for Voyager when that moment comes, or will it be completely on its own from then on?
The planned turning off in 2016 and 2020 was never carried out as no record exists. So I have removed them. Added references and expanded future of the probe.
Golden record
Linked.

As of May 14 the nominator was on vacation, so this review will be on hold until he returns and has a chance to answer it. Cambalachero (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The herald is back from his vacations. The "On hold" week for this nomination starts today. Cambalachero (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: thanks for the review. Apologies for the delay in response, but I have addressed the points and please have a look at the updated version. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: it looks like The Herald has finished responding to your comments. Are there any other aspects that need to be addressed before the review is completed? Fritzmann (message me) 10:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 15:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Voyager 2 has been transmitting data for over 46 years, making it the longest active space probe in history?
Improved to Good Article status by The Herald (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article recently updated to GA status. Very detailed and intricate with extensive uses of images and other detailed graphs. Article is cited well with no problems regaridng copryright issues. Good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this nice image for consideration. Always nice to see the most distant human made objects on the front page. Thriley (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artist's concept of Voyager in flight
@Thriley, Toadboy123, and The Herald: Unless I am mistaken, I find the hook sentence in the article but it is not cited. Per our WP:DYKCRIT The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in. Bruxton (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald: Can you get the citation of the hook done? Toadboy123 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the cite added was a lil old. I have updated it with a recent one. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley, Toadboy123, and The Herald: Thank you, another issue is missing citations for the end of paragraphs: 3rd paragraph in the Encounter with Jupiter section and 5th paragraph in the Encounter with Uranus section. Bruxton (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inline cites added.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley, Toadboy123, and The Herald: Also just noticed the first paragraph of Encounter with Jupiter section is missing a citation. Bruxton (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Last appeared as a bold link at ITN on December 11, 2018. Appeared in OTD over the years but not within the last five years. Bruxton (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Dubious Mass / Mass Type

[edit]

This article currently suggests that the "launch mass" of this space probe was 721.9 kilograms (1,592 lb). The article for Voyager 1 lists its launch mass as 815 kg (1,797 lb), but also provides a "dry mass" matching Voyager 2's :launch mass" (I'm guessing the difference between "launch" and "dry" is only(?) propellants.) The cited source for Voyager 1's launch mass now 404s, but the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine corroborates (~2017) the mass, at the time of launch, also also provided a current estimate mass, but no dry mass. The NASA source cited for Voyager 2's mass does not specify what kind of mass it is. I did not spot other references to the crafts' "dry masses" explicitly.

Obviously there's something wrong, and the Voyager 2 entry is the more dubious one. I'm hoping someone who has a little time to dig into this (or has better insight) on the topic might fix this appropriately.

Thanks. 147.219.82.254 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Encounter" times for Ross 248 and Sirius

[edit]

The "encounter" times for Ross 248 and Sirius don't seem to be correct or match the velocity of Voyager 2. The current text reads:

[T]he spacecraft travels one light-year in about 19,541 years [...] In roughly 42,000 years, Voyager 2 will pass the star Ross 248 (10.30 light-years away from Earth)[...] If undisturbed for 296,000 years, Voyager 2 should pass by the star Sirius (8.6 light-years from Earth)[...]

If the given speed is correct, then Ross 248 would be around 200k years and Sirius a little less than that. Both stars seem to be getting closer to Earth, but surely that won't make that much of a difference?

Can anyone shed light on this? Fh1 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The star's going to Voyager 2 more than Voyager 2's going to the star. Voyager 2's 15 kilometers further from the Sun every second, Ross 248's >77 kilometers closer to the Sun each second and will be 3.048 light-years away 36,500 years from now over 7 light-years closer than it is now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voyager_2&oldid=1256648787"