Talk:Interstellar probe

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

Things to be added[edit]

More items to be added, that I'm too tired to do right now:

  • Add the Bussard ramjet proposal. This doesn't actually work, but it generated more than enough press to be notable.
  • Add the more notable of the light-sail and microwave-sail proposals.

The main constraint is that this article should only list probes that either exist or have had a detailed design study performed. Otherwise we'd have hundreds of mostly-similar project proposals in the "proposed craft" sections.

All entries presently listed need references dug up too, of course.--Christopher Thomas 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a probe planed which share the name with this article[edit]

http://interstellar.jpl.nasa.gov/interstellar/probe/index.html However since the page is not updated since 2002 I do not thing this project will be developed further. TTL2 20:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the mission has been cancelled? If yes, that information must be included in the article. Someone please try to find out what happened to the mission. Offliner (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the template {{current}} relevant here?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RFC appears to be moot since the template isnt on the article, but it is listed at WP:ANRFC. If I were to formally close it on consensus it would probably be that it is not needed. But instead I will just box it up to archive it. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "New Horizons" section contain a template {{current}} here? Template:Current and Template:Current related say: ...the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template. Also Template:Current spaceflight says: This template should only be used on missions which are expected to generate news in the immediate future, such as ongoing manned missions. Article Interstellar probe is not mission, but umbrella article, it's an only article in the Category:Current events now, of course due to irrelevant template. I removed the template from the article but it was reverted some times by one user David J Johnson. And finally article was blocked from IP user editing (correct or not?) 37.54.111.51 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Though I can see that there is a basis for arguing this point (or points), it is hard to take it seriously as a matter of functional importance. I am inclined to ignore the whole matter in favour of something of more material interest. It does not strike me as being worth an edit war, or even serious discussion if you have not asked David J Johnson to explain why he disagrees with your actions. Since I have included his WP Id here, I think he should now be in a position to join the discussion, but if not, you can address him personally on his talk page. Good luck. JonRichfield (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Frankly, I am surprised that an "editor" has made such a fuss over this issue. The template was placed there correctly by another editor because the fly-by information could quickly change the text of that part of the article. The action was backed by two admins. Whilst information is still being processed, the immediate relevance has now passed and the template, in my opinion, could be removed. I would advise the IP to stop making such a fuss over a minor point. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I also don't see the issue as being too important, but then a colleague of mine just ended up reverting an editor's unexplained updates four times, eventually educating the failing editor in to how and why updates should be expained when they are checked in.
For this particular case, I don't see that it matters one way or the other. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously not. The number of edits to the section peaked at eight, by three different editors, on July 15th. That is not "a hundred or more". And even if it had been 100 during the flyby of Pluto, no more such flybies are anticipated. Maproom (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not needed. As others mentioned above, we're not seeing anything that indicates high traffic warranting the template. This is far from one of "those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day."
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Interstellar probe. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, you reverted my addition of Breakthrough Starshot[edit]

The reason you gave was "unsourced". However, it is no more unsourced than the other entries Project Orion, Bracewell probe, Project Daedalus, Project Longshot, and Starwisp (5/12 entries other than the one I added). In other words, it does not have references itself, but it does link to another Wikipedia article that has (many) references. Please either restore it, or also delete the other entries I listed above (or else explain why this one in particular needs references in this article while the others don't). – PointyOintment (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstellar probe. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstellar probe. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstellar probe. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons very unlikely to become an interstellar probe[edit]

Shall we really list New Horizons here? According to [1] power supply will be too low far before it reaches the heliopause: "[power] will be down to 150 [watts] by 2032, when the spacecraft will be 82 astronomical units away. 150 watts is supposed to be the minimum for spacecraft operation, but mission systems engineer Chris Hersman said that with some ingenuity they should be able to keep it running considerably farther than 82 AU. It will definitely not still be operable by 120 AU. The end will be somewhere in between 80 and 120, but he can't predict where yet." -- Wassermaus (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the definition of an interstellar probe it could still be listed as one as it will still reach interstellar space. So I think it should still be included.EvAlpha (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree — the New Horizons spacecraft has enough speed to exit the Solar System, and it will overtake Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 as the third farthest spacecraft from the Sun in the next century (in 2100s), even through will never overtake the Voyager spacecraft. In 2040s it'll be already at a distance of more than 100 AU from the Sun. 188.60.199.127 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer 10 issue[edit]

The second paragraph contains the claim that “Voyager 1, Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 are the only probes to have actually reached interstellar space”. However, the citation never directly verifies that. The Voyager probes have obviously crossed the heliopause, but I’m having more trouble determining if Pioneer 10 has. The citation does verify that Pioneer 10 is almost as far as Voyager 2 (which has reached interstellar space), but that doesn’t prove anything since the heliosphere isn’t static or perfectly spherical. I’ve actually found one source that claims that Pioneer 10 won’t cross the heliopause until 2057, the reasoning being that the heliosphere extends further in the direction of Pioneer 10 than in the direction of the Voyager probes.

Can anybody clear this up? For now, I’ll just add a failed verification tag. Opportunity Rover (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can’t find a single source that supports the claim. The only ones I’m finding contradict it, so I’ll edit the sentence to remove Pioneer 10 and also change the citation to one that verifies the Voyager probes’ milestone. Opportunity Rover (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alien probes[edit]

Self-replicating probe and Fermi paradox have sources about hypothetical alien probes, I think you could have looked there before reverting, instead of making it harder to find this information Justin the Just (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's a burden of an editor to add reliable sources to any new information: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Pls check Wikipedia:Citing sources. Artem.G (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, be lazy and make the encylopedia worse. Justin the Just (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstellar_probe&oldid=1225657775"