![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This page has a lot of useful infomation for a 13 year old girl like me and i am doing reasearch on Mercury and I got most of my project done on this website or that page. Thanks again amanda 13 from albany NY
~ Paratroopa Platoon #174
Why is this page so confussing? I mean I am doing a science project and I dont understand this website at all. Well anyways buh-bii!!<> ~ Megan LeBlanc 4-27-07
I use Wikipedia for most of my research, and when I need more, I can look at the external links. I'm 13 btw. 68.4.212.158 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Pizza, you added "A third theory argues that the outer parts of Mercury were "eroded" by the solar wind." as one of the explanations that have been presented for why Mercury has such a big core. How is this different from the theory mentioned immediately before it, in which Mercury's crust was vaporized and blown away by solar wind? Did it blow Mercury's crust away while it was still solid instead, in which case, how were such hellaciously strong solar winds possible? I think this could use more detail, or some kind of reference, or something. Bryan 02:15 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, and also, I just removed this paragraph:
because Earth doesn't have synchronous rotation, and all planets have tidal bulges so I don't see what's special about Mercury's. Bryan
Well this text here states: "The Sun created a significant tidal bulge on Mercury...", I suppose it was wrong to infer that Earth had a synchronous rotation. Pizza Puzzle
According to the table in Earth its temperature varies from 184K to 333K. The way I reckon that makes 149K between them, not 11K. Maybe its just a misunderstanding on my part as to what that 11K refers to; but it probably could be expressed more clearly.
OK, anonymous editor comes along and adds in the surface gravity compared to Earth, which is nice. But also "corrected" the straightforward surface gravity from 2.78 m/s² to 0.926 m/s². Fits with the compared-to-Earth number of 0.0945, at least. But meanwhile, using the numbers in there for the mass and diameter, I get a surface gravity of 3.70 m/s². Looking back through the history, it's been 2.78 m/s² since the page first got a surface gravity. What gives?!? -- John Owens (talk) 23:25, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
What is this?
Does anyone have a source for this, or is it speculation? -- Doradus 20:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Why does the Mercury article talk about Human colonisation when the other planetary articles do not?
Would it be possible to cite a source or external reference for the information about the potential for human colonization which is included in this article (something like a NASA study, a paper in a scientific journal, or a web site)? -- DannyZ 05:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not to put an ephemeris for mercury in the Wikipedia? The following ephemeris runs from January 1st, 2005 to January 1st, 2015. Right ascension and declination are in actual equinox. First column is right ascension, second declination, third elongation to sun. The ephemeris is valid for 0h UTC
On the Potential For Human Colonization subject it was written that a base on Mercury could use a heat sink to store up heat for the night. Does the author realize a mercurian day is about 60 days long? Or was the section talking about Earth's Moon still? If it was, it should be made clearer. (PS. I'm kinda new to wikipedia, correct me if I'm doing something wrong here)
From the article-
"Due to the lack of atmosphere to conduct heat, a thermal radiator hidden in the shadow of a sun screen would be able to reject heat into space even at the height of the Mercurian day. Alternatively, the base could use a heat sink during the day to store up heat for disposal during the night. Protecting mobile vehicles or robots against solar heating might prove much more difficult, however, which may limit the amount of surface activity that could be performed during the day."
(Personally, I'd make a mobile base that would just crawl along the surface at about 4 mph to stay in the nice twilight.) [unsigned]
I do wonder if a heat sink would be able to dissipate enough heat away in an near perfect vacuum. I've heard the shuttle will overheat if the bay doors don't open in orbit. By the way, have you seen Mercury recently? Yesterday was the first time I've seen it. It's just above the horizon just after it gets dark. The special treat is Venus, which is only 1 degree away. But you may already have heard about that. And by the way, lets not try to land on Venus any time soon- sulfuric acid rain, 400 degrees in the shade, etc. [unsigned]
I disagree with the page move to just Mercury instead of Mercury (planet). There was no discussion here on the talk page, and (more importantly) Mercury is unique among planets in that the word "mercury" has another meaning that is arguably just as common: that of the chemical element. (Well, not really unique I guess: "earth" can mean dirt, and "Pluto" might be a cartoon dog.) -- Doradus 01:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've just re-written quite a lot of the article for style and accuracy. I've removed two sections, on the potential for space colonisation and data about elongations; the first, because it seems to be pure speculation, and the second because it is an enormous block of table which seems out of place in an encyclopaedia article. Others might disagree with my removal; for convenience I've copied them both here:
A crater at the North or South pole of Mercury might prove to be one of the best locations for an off-Earth colony, as the temperature would remain almost constant (at around minus 200 degrees Celsius). This is because Mercury has negligible axial tilt and essentially no atmosphere to carry heat from its sunlit portion. It would thus always be dark at the bottom of a crater at the planet's pole, even a shallow one. Human activities could warm the colony to a comfortable temperature, and the low ambient temperature would make waste heat disposal easier than most locations off Earth.
A base elsewhere would have to be able to deal with many weeks of continuous intense solar heating followed by many weeks without any external heating at all. This would not necessarily be as difficult as it may first seem. Facilities could be buried under several meters of loose-packed regolith, which in a vacuum would serve as effective thermal insulation as well as a radiation shield. Similar approaches have been proposed for bases on Earth's Moon, which has two-week-long days followed by two-week-long nights. Due to the lack of atmosphere to conduct heat, a thermal radiator hidden in the shadow of a sun screen would be able to reject heat into space even at the height of the Mercurian day. Alternatively, the base could use a heat sink during the day to store up heat for disposal during the night. Protecting mobile vehicles or robots against solar heating might prove much more difficult, however, which may limit the amount of surface activity that could be performed during the day.
Greatest Eastern Elongation | Stationary, retrograde | Lower Conjunction | Stationary, prograde | Greatest Western Elongation | Upper Conjunction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 November 2004 (UTC) 22.2° | 30 November 2004 (UTC) | 10 December 2004 (UTC) | 20 December 2004 (UTC) | 29 December 2004 (UTC) 22.5° | 14 February 2005 (UTC) |
12 March 2005 (UTC) 18.3° | 19 March 2005 (UTC) | 29 March 2005 (UTC) | 11 April 2005 (UTC) | 26 April 2005 (UTC) 27.2° | 3 June 2005 (UTC) |
9 July 2005 (UTC) 26.2° | 22 July 2005 (UTC) | 5 August 2005 (UTC) | 15 August 2005 (UTC) | 23 August 2005 (UTC) 18.4° | 18 September 2005 (UTC) |
3 November 2005 (UTC) 23.5° | 14 November 2005 (UTC) | 24 November 2005 (UTC) | 4 December 2005 (UTC) | 12 December 2005 (UTC) 21.1° | 26 January 2006 (UTC) |
24 February 2006 (UTC) 18.1° | 2 March 2006 (UTC) | 12 March 2006 (UTC) | 24 March 2006 (UTC) | 8 April 2006 (UTC) 27.8° | 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
20 June 2006 (UTC) 24.9° | 4 July 2006 (UTC) | 18 July 2006 (UTC) | 28 July 2006 (UTC) | 7 August 2006 (UTC) 19.2° | 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
17 October 2006 (UTC) 24.8° | 28 October 2006 (UTC) | 11 November 2006 (UTC) | 17 November 2006 (UTC) | 25 November 2006 (UTC) 19.9° | 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
7 February 2007 (UTC) 18.2° | 13 February 2007 (UTC) | 23 February 2007 (UTC) | 7 March 2007 (UTC) | 22 March 2007 (UTC) 27.7° | 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
2 June 2007 (UTC) 23.4° | 15 June 2007 (UTC) | 28 June 2007 (UTC) | 10 July 2007 (UTC) | 20 July 2007 (UTC) 20.3° | 15 August 2007 (UTC) |
29 September 2007 (UTC) 26° | 12 October 2007 (UTC) | 23 October 2007 (UTC) | 1 November 2007 (UTC) | 8 November 2007 (UTC) 19° | 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
22 January 2008 (UTC) 18.6° | 28 January 2008 (UTC) | 6 February 2008 (UTC) | 18 February 2008 (UTC) | 3 March 2008 (UTC) 27.1° | 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
14 May 2008 (UTC) 21.8° | 26 May 2008 (UTC) | 7 June 2008 (UTC) | 19 June 2008 (UTC) | 1 July 2008 (UTC) 21.8° | 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
11 September 2008 (UTC) 26.9° | 24 September 2008 (UTC) | 6 October 2008 (UTC) | 15 October 2008 (UTC) | 22 October 2008 (UTC) 18.3° | 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
4 January 2009 (UTC) 19.3° | 11 January 2009 (UTC) | 20 January 2009 (UTC) | 1 February 2009 (UTC) | 13 February 2009 (UTC) 26.1° | 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
26 April 2009 (UTC) 20.4° | 7 May 2009 (UTC) | 18 May 2009 (UTC) | 30 May 2009 (UTC) | 13 June 2009 (UTC) 23.5° | 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
24 August 2009 (UTC) 27.4° | 6 September 2009 (UTC) | 20 September 2009 (UTC) | 28 September 2009 (UTC) | 6 October 2009 (UTC) 17.9° | 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
18 December 2009 (UTC) 20.3° | 26 December 2009 (UTC) | 4 January 2010 (UTC) | 15 January 2010 (UTC) | 27 January 2010 (UTC) 24.8° | 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
8 April 2010 (UTC) 19.3° | 18 April 2010 (UTC) | 28 April 2010 (UTC) | 11 May 2010 (UTC) | 26 May 2010 (UTC) 25.1° | 28 June 2010 (UTC) |
7 August 2010 (UTC) 24.2° | 20 August 2010 (UTC) | 3 September 2010 (UTC) | 12 September 2010 (UTC) | 19 September 2010 (UTC) 18.2° | 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
1 December 2010 (UTC) 21.2° | 10 December 2010 (UTC) | 20 December 2010 (UTC) | 30 December 2010 (UTC) | 9 January 2011 (UTC) 23.3° | 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
23 March 2011 (UTC) 18.6° | 30 March 2011 (UTC) | 9 April 2011 (UTC) | 22 April 2011 (UTC) | 7 May 2011 (UTC) 26.6° | 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
20 July 2011 (UTC) 26.8° | 2 August 2011 (UTC) | 17 August 2011 (UTC) | 26 August 2011 (UTC) | 3 September 2011 (UTC) 18.1° | 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
14 November 2011 (UTC) 22.7° | 24 November 2011 (UTC) | 4 December 2011 (UTC) | 14 December 2011 (UTC) | 23 December 2011 (UTC) 21.8° | 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
5 March 2012 (UTC) 18.2° | 11 March 2012 (UTC) | 21 March 2012 (UTC) | 3 April 2012 (UTC) | 18 April 2012 (UTC) 27.5° | 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
1 July 2012 (UTC) 25.7° | 14 July 2012 (UTC) | 28 July 2012 (UTC) | 7 August 2012 (UTC) | 16 August 2012 (UTC) 18.7° | 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
26 October 2012 (UTC) 24.1° | 7 November 2012 (UTC) | 17 November 2012 (UTC) | 26 November 2012 (UTC) | 4 December 2012 (UTC) 20.6° | 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
16 February 2013 (UTC) 18.1° | 22 February 2013 (UTC) | 4 March 2013 (UTC) | 16 March 2013 (UTC) | 31 March 2013 (UTC) 27.8° | 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
12 June 2013 (UTC) 24.3° | 25 June 2013 (UTC) | 9 July 2013 (UTC) | 20 July 2013 (UTC) | 30 July 2013 (UTC) 19.6° | 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
9 October 2013 (UTC) 25.3° | 21 October 2013 (UTC) | 1 November 2013 (UTC) | 10 November 2013 (UTC) | 18 November 2013 (UTC) 19.5° | 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
31 January 2014 (UTC) 18.4° | 6 February 2014 (UTC) | 15 February 2014 (UTC) | 27 February 2014 (UTC) | 14 March 2014 (UTC) 27.6° | 26 April 2014 (UTC) |
25 May 2014 (UTC) 22.7° | 7 June 2014 (UTC) | 19 June 2014 (UTC) | 1 July 2014 (UTC) | 12 July 2014 (UTC) 20.9° | 8 August 2014 (UTC) |
21 September 2014 (UTC) 26.4° | 4 October 2014 (UTC) | 16 October 2014 (UTC) | 25 October 2014 (UTC) | 1 November 2014 (UTC) 18.7° | 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
14 January 2015 (UTC) 18.9° | 21 January 2015 (UTC) | 30 January 2015 (UTC) | 11 February 2015 (UTC) | 24 February 2015 (UTC) 26.8° | 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
7 May 2015 (UTC) 21.2° | 19 May 2015 (UTC) | 30 May 2015 (UTC) | 11 June 2015 (UTC) | 24 June 2015 (UTC) 22.5° | 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
4 September 2015 (UTC) 27.1° | 17 September 2015 (UTC) | 30 September 2015 (UTC) | 8 October 2015 (UTC) | 16 October 2015 (UTC) 18.1° | 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
29 December 2015 (UTC) 19.7° | 5 January 2016 (UTC) | 14 January 2016 (UTC) | 25 January 2016 (UTC) | 7 February 2016 (UTC) 25.6° | 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
18 April 2016 (UTC) 19.9° | 29 April 2016 (UTC) | 9 May 2016 (UTC) | 21 May 2016 (UTC) | 5 June 2016 (UTC) 24.2° | 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
16 August 2016 (UTC) 27.4° | 30 August 2016 (UTC) | 12 September 2016 (UTC) | 21 September 2016 (UTC) | 28 September 2016 (UTC) 17.9° | 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
11 December 2016 (UTC) 20.8° | 19 December 2016 (UTC) | 28 December 2016 (UTC) | 8 January 2017 (UTC) | 19 January 2017 (UTC) 24.1° | 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
1 April 2017 (UTC) 19° | 10 April 2017 (UTC) | 20 April 2017 (UTC) | 2 May 2017 (UTC) | 17 May 2017 (UTC) 25.8° | 21 June 2017 (UTC) |
30 July 2017 (UTC) 27.2° | 12 August 2017 (UTC) | 26 August 2017 (UTC) | 4 September 2017 (UTC) | 12 September 2017 (UTC) 17.9° | 8 October 2017 (UTC) |
24 November 2017 (UTC) 22° | 3 December 2017 (UTC) | 13 December 2017 (UTC) | 23 December 2017 (UTC) | 1 January 2018 (UTC) 22.7° | 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
15 March 2018 (UTC) 18.4° | 22 March 2018 (UTC) | 1 April 2018 (UTC) | 14 April 2018 (UTC) | 29 April 2018 (UTC) 27° | 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
12 July 2018 (UTC) 26.4° | 25 July 2018 (UTC) | 9 August 2018 (UTC) | 18 August 2018 (UTC) | 26 August 2018 (UTC) 18.3° | 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
6 November 2018 (UTC) 23.3° | 17 November 2018 (UTC) | 27 November 2018 (UTC) | 6 December 2018 (UTC) | 15 December 2018 (UTC) 21.3° | 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
27 February 2019 (UTC) 18.1° | 5 March 2019 (UTC) | 15 March 2019 (UTC) | 27 March 2019 (UTC) | 11 April 2019 (UTC) 27.7° | 21 May 2019 (UTC) |
23 June 2019 (UTC) 25.1° | 7 July 2019 (UTC) | 21 July 2019 (UTC) | 31 July 2019 (UTC) | 9 August 2019 (UTC) 19.1° | 4 September 2019 (UTC) |
20 October 2019 (UTC) 24.6° | 31 October 2019 (UTC) | 11 November 2019 (UTC) | 20 November 2019 (UTC) | 28 November 2019 (UTC) 20.1° | 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
10 February 2020 (UTC) 18.2° | 16 February 2020 (UTC) | 26 February 2020 (UTC) | 9 March 2020 (UTC) | 24 March 2020 (UTC) 27.8° | 4 May 2020 (UTC) |
4 June 2020 (UTC) 23.6° | 17 June 2020 (UTC) | 1 July 2020 (UTC) | 12 July 2020 (UTC) | 22 July 2020 (UTC) 20.1° | 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
1 October 2020 (UTC) 25.8° | 14 October 2020 (UTC) | 25 October 2020 (UTC) | 3 November 2020 (UTC) | 10 November 2020 (UTC) 19.1° | 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Why does the table give: Declination 61.45° I thought that declination of planets is variable. Cartes du Ciel says that mercury's declination is now +03°41'04.1? [unsigned]
"The approaching spacecraft cannot use aerobraking to help enter orbit around Mercury since it has no atmosphere and must rely on rocket boosters." MESSENGER "will explore the planet's atmosphere, composition and structure." How can it explore the planet's atmosphere if it has none? Teply 04:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was: consensus was to not move— jiy ( talk) 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In the section Surface Features the following is said:"...it was heavily bombarded by comets and asteroids for a period of about 8000 million years." AFIK, our solar system is only about 4500 million years old. Shouldn't it rather say 800 million years or something like that? Bye. CalRis
"Mercury (planet)" applies the phrases "Morning Star " and "Evening Star" to Mercury. The separate articles "Morning Star" and the like refer to Venus. 81.132.55.206 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the German version of this article, and I think the way theirs is laid out is better than this is at the moment. It allows coverage of all significant aspects of the planet in a very clear and organised way. Below is their TOC - what would anyone think about rearranging our article along these lines? Worldtraveller 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Structure
2 Orbit and rotation
3 Research
4 Observation
5 Cultural history
6 See also
7 Literature
8 Web links
I took this TOC and put all of our current content into it - see Mercury (planet)/temp. It highlighted some gaps in our coverage which I've started to fill. If no-one objects I'll move what's in the temp page to this page later today. Worldtraveller 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"Tentative suggestions have been made that Mercury may be a Chthonian planet." Can anyone provide any citation for this? It is also mentioned on the chthonian planet page, no citation there either. Chaos syndrome 17:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The section edit boxes all appear at Orbit. Could someone fix that? I don't know how to fix formatting things of that sort, as far as I know those are automatic and I don't have experience dealing with such things. -- Keflavich 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The section on cultural understanding is one that needs work. Can anyone add to it? Once it's a decent overview I'm thinking this article is beginning to look like it might be a worthy FA candidate. I'm just adding references and tidying up prose in the rest of the article at the moment. Worldtraveller 10:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm editing the article to make all spellings consistently follow American usage. This is because the oldest version of the article used American spellings (kilometer, not kilometre). Angr ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The NASA maps of the planet make the surface look brown. Yet I've seen artist's impressions that make the planet grey, like the Moon. Does anyone know which is correct? The Singing Badger 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The maximum magnitude of Mercury seems to be -1.9. A standard magnitude seems to be -0.42. The average magnitude seems to be 0.0. The minimum is about 1.3 or a slightly higher number. The numbers in the article seem to be wrong.
According to Astronomy magazine, Mercury will have an apparent magnitude of -0.9 on June 9, which is half a magnitude brighter than the maximum of -0.42 listed here. That -1.9 seems reasonable, but the -.42 is clearly wrong-- Syd Henderson 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
Shouldn/t Mercury's distance from the Sun appear near the top of the article? I imagine this # is buried in some astro. shorthand in that table, but it should be more plain, no? Sfahey 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The explanation given sounds like it is referring to phenomena predicted by special relativity, not general relativity. That is incorrect, as the SR contribution is only about 7"/century, and was already taken into account before Einstein published his explanation based on GR. I don't know an easy way to explain how the anomalous precession derives from GR, or I'd fix this myself. -- Mmm 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The GR contribution as given in "The Fundamentals of General Relativity" published in 1916 by Einstein can be derived form an effective potential
where l is the mass specific angular momentum, c the speed of light, and r the distance to the center of mass. The calculation is purely classical, neglecting any chance in mass. The potential is effective in the sense that the trajectory is calculated as if there would be a potential of that size. But, it depends on the angular momentum, a property of the planet rather than the gravitational field of the Sun.
Moreover, the effective potential causes other chances to the trajectory rather than only an advance of the perihelion.
A pure advance of the perihelion would be decribed as
where p,e and k are constants and the angle between the space componentents in cartesian coordinates. Such a trajectory would result from a potential of the form
84.169.196.154 09:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the SR contribution is indeed about 15"/century. This is the result of the following simulation.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
main(){
int N = 1500000,i; /* number of iteration steps, counter for time */ double AE = 1.49598E11; /* AU average distance Earth to Sun */ double c = 299792458; /* speed of light */ double e = 0.0256; /* eccentricity of orbit */ double a = 0.3871; /* semi majajor axis */ double pi = 4*atan(1); /* 3.1415 .. */ double wfak = (180/pi)*3600; /* convertion to arc seconds */ double rx = a*(1-e)*AE; /* distance mercury sun */ double ry = 0; double T = 87.969*(60*60*24); /* siderial period */ double vx = 0; double vy = AE*(2*pi*a)*(1+e)/T; /* max. orbital speed */
double GM=1.32712440018E20; /* G mass of Sun */ double mcc = 1; /* rest energy */ double v; double E,m,px,py,p; /* energy, mass, momentum, */ double beta,flag=1; double w0,w1; /* initial and final position of perihelion */ double dt = T/(double)N; /* interation step - time interval */ double r0,r; /* distance to sun */ int max = 100*N; int count = 0; /* number of perihelion transits */
v = sqrt(vx*vx+vy*vy); beta = v/c; E = mcc/sqrt(1-beta*beta); r = sqrt(rx*rx+ry*ry); m = E/(c*c); py = m * v; px = 0;
for(i=0;i<max;i++){
rx += vx*dt; ry += vy*dt; r = sqrt( rx*rx + ry*ry );
if (r < r0 && i>1) { if (flag==1) printf("aphelion %d %f %f\n",i,r,wfak*ry/rx); flag=-1; } if (r > r0 && i>1) { if (flag==-1) { printf("perihelion %d %f %f\n",i,r,wfak*ry/rx); if (count==0) w0 = wfak*ry/rx; w1 = wfak*ry/rx; count++; } flag=1; } r0 = r; /* dp = F * dt */ px -= ((m*GM)/(r*r*r))*rx * dt; py -= ((m*GM)/(r*r*r))*ry * dt; p = sqrt(px*px+py*py); /* E^2 = (m0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 */ E = sqrt(mcc*mcc + (p*c)*(p*c)); /* E = m c*c */ m = E/(c*c); /* v = p/m */ vx = px/m; vy = py/m; } printf("\n\nSR contribution /century %f\n", (100*86400*364.24)/T*(w1-w0)/(count-1));
}
This result looks quite plausible, since the relative mass dilation
is even somewhat smaller than the advance of perihelion measured in radians.
It looks unrealistic to measure such small pertubations. At least there are many speculation about all kind of pertubations of the orbit in that order of magnitude, which are not completely understood. 84.169.211.110 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that Pluto's not a planet anymore, Mercury is probably the smallest planet. Discuss. PhoenixSeraph 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the introductory sentence to say that Mercury is the "innermost and smallest planet" so that this article can be internally Wiki-consistent with the Pluto article and the Solar System template which both recognize Pluto as a dwarf planet and thus inherently support the notion that Mercury is the smallest planet in the solar system. I have, however, moved the dispute to a footnote where visitors may see that Mercury's status as the smallest planet is dependent on the recent IAU redefinition and that this is disputed by some unsourced group of people. Actual references to reputable disputes of the reclassification (something more than a blog entry) would be welcome and perhaps aid the Wiki-community in coming to a consensus as to how the dispute should be dealt with. However, I wish to make clear that from my perspective it is unacceptable to hedge Mercury's status as the smallest planet simply because of personal attachment to Pluto without adequate sourcing as to a reputable dispute concerning Pluto's status, particularly given the fact that elsewhere Wikipedia clearly supports the IAU redefinition as definitive. Bojangles04 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
For sake of neutrality, I don't support adding the word "smallest" to the lead, especially to today's featured article. The lead should only contain information that is completely undisputed, and I believe it can do without a size ranking. So "Mercury is the innermost planet..." would be sufficient as the first sentence.
By the way, I generally support IAU's redefinition. However, we should put firm astronomical facts first and try not to fill the article with terminological and linguistical arguments.
80.235.56.16
20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There is destructive "graffiti" at the end of the first paragraph. I tried to edit it out but it does not appear on the editing page. Anyone know how we can get this removed? [unsigned]
The statement "its greatest angular separation from the Sun (greatest elongation) is only 28.3° (it can only be seen in twilight)." came as a big surprise to me. Can any one please explain why Mercury cannot be seen at dawn as well, half a Mercurian year (44 days) later?
Thanks, -- AVM 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it amusing that Mercury is the featured article on the Main Page the very same day that Pluto is on the Main Page "In the news" for its "demotion" from planet. Agent 86 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Mercury's gravity is too small for it to hold any substatial atmosphere. Yet Titan's atmosphere is thicker than earths, despite having much less gravity than either Earth or Mars. So how can this be the reason Mercury has such a small atmoshere? 142.68.186.29 23:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I found this added to the end of the first paragraph from 210.15.211.182: "Mercury does not have any moons, but is a tiny bit bigger than our moon." GravityIsForSuckers 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I know we're all excited about Pluto no longer being a planet, but honestly the "smallest planet in the solar system" in the first sentence is going to be misleading to a lot of people. I had added the clarification "smallest of the 8 planets in the solar system" but I see that's been removed. Footnotes are also well and good, but the average person isn't going to read them. I strongly suggest being a bit more explicit about where it stands, at least until Pluto is no longer considered a planet by the average man on the street - probably a few more years at least. Stevage 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the article to a page on NASA, im gettin different values... Are we using old figures here... or is NASA...
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html
-- Nbound 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comparing sources... both seem to be from the same publisher, same year with different authors...
Current Source: Potassium 31.7% Sodium 24.9% Atomic Oxygen 9.5% Argon 7.0% Helium 5.9% Molecular Oxygen 5.6% Nitrogen 5.2% Carbon dioxide 3.6% Water 3.4% Hydrogen 3.2%
Other Source: Atmospheric composition: 42% Oxygen (O2), 29% Sodium (Na), 22% Hydrogen (H2), 6% Helium (He), 0.5% Potassium (K), possible trace amounts of Argon (Ar), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water (H2O), Nitrogen (N2), Xenon (Xe), Krypton (Kr), Neon (Ne)
there seems to be a significant difference :| -- Nbound 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The argument for the advance of Mercury's perihelion does not appear to view the orbit of Mercury from the perspective of the focus of its orbit, which is the centre of the sun. If this were applied and taken to its logical conclusion, by starting from the basis of the average velocity/mass and applying mass dilation in the hemisphere of the aphelion, a lower than average mass would result and thus a reduced velocity at the aphelion and an undershooting of its predicted position. And as the time Mercury spends in the hemisphere of the aphelion is far greater than that in the opposite, the result would be to more than cancel out the suggested perihelion advance, which in turn would have the overall effect of reversing the observed precession. I would be interested in an explanation. Romun 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss at Talk:Mercury --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Within the section titled "Observation", several things appear to be wrong:
Icek 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article should have a picture of the double sunrise, if possible. A better version of this graphic, [ [4]] Thanks, CarpD (^_^)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism spotted, but I am not able to edit, since the vandalism is not visible in edit mode. Salimi 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mercury's heat may go up to 800 degree f, on the other side of the planet it may lower to 200 f below zero. It would take 85 Earth days to get around the sun.
Mercury has no moons, it does have volcanos. Mercury has more than 500 volcanos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.42.130 ( talk) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Dominic Tarro Delray Beach Fl, (289-2969)
Hey everybody,
one http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/why_mercury/index.html one find an estimation for a core size with 65% of the whole planet size and NOT as written in the article 42%. My guess is 65% by mass = 42% by volume; both numbers being subject to assumtions which have credibility, but are unproven. Neil And what is meant by planet size, part of the volume or part of the total mass in Mercury's mass distribution? (Maybe this makes the different between Messanger-site and wikipedia?) Can someone comment on it? (Sorry for my poor English, I am just a German guy.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.206.107.106 ( talk) 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
With the values of aphelion distance and perihelion distance from this article, I calculate the semi-minor-axis to = 56 671 637,01 km (believe me - i used my (by me) developed equation : b = sqr ( ((aph + per) / 2)² + ((aph - per) / 2)²) , but i dont want to explain the equation - its hard to write for me in English - test and compare it with every other accepted equation (for this planet, and if you want, for any other planet and object) - you will see : I'm right). With the same equation you can calculate the semi-minor-axis for article of planets, which only give the semi-MAJOR-axis. For the orbital circumference i have calculated with numerical integration the very exact value of : 359 976 796,63 km - test and compare it with the exact values of the semi-major-axis and semi-minor-axis, on this link : http://www.mathematik.ch/anwendungenmath/numint/ or any other exact equation for the circumference of an ellipse ...you will see, I'm right. I can't make the changes in this article, because I'm only signed up at the german wikipedia. But if nobody make this mathematically correct changes in this article maybe I sign up here, and make the changes for all planets, who gives the aphelion and perihelion distances, but only the semi-major-axis, and not the semi-minor-axis - and just a not-exactly orbital circumference, like in the Mercury-article. Lots of Greets from Austria, Pygmalion1 (24. February 2007 , 12:03 (CET))
First, b can be calculated using only the semi-major axis a and eccentricity e. I got a number only about 450 meters different than yours, ending with a .453 I used an infinite series formula for the circumference (which uses a and e), getting 359976739.60 km. I calculated it with Excel. (Then decided to check against an even higher-precision calculator-right on the money) The problem here is that the given numbers aren't precise enough to calculate to the nearest km. Lower e and higher a gives greater circumference, changing the numbers (adding or subtracting .5 and .000000005) gives a range of 6.6 km.
Actually, the actual perihelion varies by hundreds of km. Saros136 11:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I threw together an animated version of the orbital resonance graphic, I think it may help illustrate the idea a little better, at least to the layman, but I wanted to see what you all think first. -- Age234 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the strength of Mercury's magnetic field quoted (1% of Earth's) is in error. I have two astronomy textbooks ("Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond" and "World's Apart") in front of me that say it is "about 10^-4 of earth's" and "about 1/3000th of earth's", respectively. 141.209.165.222 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if Wikipedia allows lowercase titles in the future, this article can be at Mercury while the article on element would be at mercury. Voortle 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In the main pic for this article, there is something that appears to be a prominant surface feature. It's the thing that looks like an arm with a Pac-Man puppet reaching down from the top of the planet. I couldn't find mention of that particular feature in the article, so I'm wondering if the "feature" is just an area of the planet that wasn't scanned by whatever probe or telescope took the picture. If somebody has that info, please include it in the article so I and others like me will be less confused! JSC ltd 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
On Yahoo just minutes ago, apparently... [5] Didn't put it in the article because it was made featured-status by likely-superior writers, who'd know better how to incorporate it. -- Chr.K. 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Sidebar has only one reference, for one item, to detail where the information came from. Could someone actually support these data? This is also applicable to the other planets. --MatthewKarlsen
I've checked dictionary.com and the IPA pronunciation is ˈmɜrkyəri. May i know why it is an ɹi behind? Thanks. — Sengkang 04:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Despite its slow 176-day-long rotation..." Is this right? Elsewhere it says 58 days. Richard75 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The article gives a variety of atmospheric constituents but is unreferenced. Here at NSSDC they give values which are very different. I would be inclined to believe NASA rather than the unreferenced values given in this article, at least that data is traceable. However, does anyone have a reference for the values that are currently in the article? Deuar 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am an editor on Simple English Wikipedia, and I have researched the facts about the "Very Good Article" status. In Simple English Wikipedia, "Very Good Articles" are not meant to have a single red link, yet I see that this article has one red link in the category: Advance of perihelion. Also, in the same category, there is a link that makes no sense. Either you fix these, or delete them. otherwise, this page may be likely to lose its very good article status. 83.76.249.93 11:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added a section called "The Future of Mercury". I was not sure what section to put this in or if people even want this included in the article. I do think some of this is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. I mentioned, "Current theories suggest that in 7.7 billion years, when the Sun has exhausted its central supply of hydrogen and has become a
red giant, that the Sun will engulf Mercury." References:
NewScientist and
The Once and Future Sun
--
Kheider
20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There's an space splitting the value of Mercury's eccentricity (0.205 30294). I guess it misses a "6" in that place but I'm not an expert. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.38.227 ( talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I added information about Mercury as a former moon of Venus as the last paragraph of Internal Structure which it probably is but this is rarely mentioned. There is also the question of it being the smallest planet; I consider it to be the smallest MAJOR planet. See my website astro-taxonomy.net for a definition of planet and major planet. Great article by the way, deserving of FA assessment. Star Guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
First images in: see: Encounter Observation Phases
Serendipod ous 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've looked at this on two different browsers, and both times, when I look at the "Radar Image of Polar Ice Cap" photo, it's positioned in such a way that it's cutting off text in the paragraph about the Geological makeup of Mercury. I'm just learning about formatting, so I'm not sure how to do it, but maybe someone else can fix it? Editortothemasses ( talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a reading of this article. MasterDirk 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the intro to indicate that Mariner was "the first of two satellites to approach Mercury...", now that MESSENGER has arrived at Mercury. Hopefully this isn't considered controversial... TMSTKSBK ( talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I like that the Messenger image is now the main photo for the page, as it's cool to have a hi-res picture when one wasn't previously available. I liked the old photo, though, for one reason - the color. I think a black and white photo detracts from the "atmosphere" of the article - Mercury, in my mind, has always had a reddish tint to it. I liked the Mariner photo that was up before, and is now found lower on the page. I have a colorized version of the Messenger photo that I matched (more or less) to the color on the Mariner photograph which I think might look good (or anyone else could make one, I don't really care) - the only problem is copyright info. On NASA's site, the Messenger photo is credited variously to Nasa, Johns Hopkins, and at least one or two other research institutes. I don't know what that means for a derivative (colorized) verision, if such a thing would even be possible. Anybody have any thoughts/input about the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.165.236 ( talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Mariner 10 no longer represents the best source or most recent of information regarding Mercury. -- Starks ( talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Stupid question, but the article does not (so far as I can see) answer it. The maps of Mercury make it look brown, and I've seen images (like this NASA artist's impression) depicting it that way. Yet I remember reading somewhere that Mercury is in fact grey, and the maps were not intended to represent its true colour. Am I right about this? Rubble pile ( talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
it's brown http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132 i think this should be the front image —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions "heavily cratered" - can someone add to the surface geology section a statement discussing whether Mercury is more heavily cratered than, say, the Moon? And explain why? I envision asteroids smashing into Mercury at higher velocity than they'd smash into anything else because they've been pulled by the Sun more strongly and for longer than an asteroid smashing into anything else in the solar system. Tempshill ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
now this should definitely be the front image, it's very good quality and TRUE color [and almost total perspective) http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?page=1&gallery_id=2&image_id=143 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Crust = 100-200 km Mantle = 600 km Core = 1800 km Total = 2500-2600 km But Mercury's radius is only 2440 km!
I have read elsewhere that the 600 km refers to the lithosphere, which consists of the crust + the mantle.
Eroica (
talk)
14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What's this blue stuff the Messanger probe found? Shouldn't we all go nuts about it? I'll sign later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.226.180 ( talk) 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I reworded the intro somewhat, hopefully for the better, and added two fact tags: I've always seen the symbol for Mercury described as Hermes' caduceus, not the caduceus plus head and hat, and the Sumerian name looks like it might have lumped phonograms and determinatives together. sd/- sumit kwami ( talk) 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We are all children of the sun, we all came out of the sun so why do we fight? We all came from one source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.91.250 ( talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What is up with all the attacks today? Have the vandals decid to target this page? Or some school asked about a paper on mercury and they are venting their frustrations. Should we request a semi-prot? Samuel Sol ( talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Basing myself on this comment during Neptune's FAC. I'm removing from the main article the foreign names of the planet. And copying it below.
Samuel Sol ( talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(<-) Nice new source mate. Just to be sure, book? Journal? To update to the the cite template. Samuel Sol ( talk) 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A note for future editors: Some sources (including the NASA source) precede the Sumerian transcription with "MUL". "MUL" was a symbol used by the Sumerians to designate that they were referring to a star or planet, but it is not considered part of the actual name. Some sources superscript it like so: MULUDU.IDIM.GU4.UD. Also, the "4" is a reference number in the Sumero-Akkadian Transliteration system to designate which of several syllables a certain Sumerian sign is most likely designating. Some sources list the Sumerian name as simply "Udu-idum-gu-ud", which is basically correct. The version I have used in the article is exactly how it is printed in the original Hunger and Pingree article (which is considered the definitive source on the matter). Kaldari ( talk) 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that every hour this article pops up on my watch list with s.o. reverting vandalism. It's FA - shouldn't it have some minimal protection? — kwami ( talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Our article currently says that Mercury has been known since the 3rd millennium BC, but we don't provide any reference for this statement. The MUL.APIN record referenced in the citation I added only dates back to about 1370 B.C. Anyone know of earlier records than that? Kaldari ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Parts of this article look like they would not survive a FAC. There are long stretches of facts with no citations to back them up and the citations are not properly formatted. I'm also seeing a few stub paragraphs. This may need an FAR soon.— RJH ( talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The mean temperature is listed as 452 K; but the Mercury fact sheet lists 440 K. I'm not sure where the 452 came from and that makes the other temperature values dubious.— RJH ( talk) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How old is Mercury? The articles on Sun and Earth claim their respective ages to be nearly same 4-5 billion years. So I guess, Mercury too must be a twin. Anwar ( talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Rocks on Mercury have not been available, so no direct answer can be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 ( talk) 11:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The source cited for the axial tilt gives a value of "~0", rather than 0.01 as listed in the article body. So it is unclear where that value came from. The conclusion of the following reference gives a value of 1.6 arcminutes for the mean obliquity:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)That would correspond to 0.027°. Does anybody have a better reference? If not perhaps the article should use the above? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I wonder what is wrong with the doi field that it doesn't complete the URL properly?— RJH ( talk)
Multiple astronomy articles present ancient Greek names for the objects, including Sirius, Venus, Mars, &c. For some reason, editor "Rubble pile" has taken a special interest in removing the Greek name from this article. Is there a consensus for the removal of the Greek name from this page in particular? I do think we should have a consistent policy about this across wikipedia. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) --
Dr pda (
talk)
11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[De-indenting] Citing to a reliable source is a different issue than removing the Greek name because a transliteration exists. The citation issue is a problem for much of this article. In other astronomy articles the citation does exist. Simply adding a {{ Fact}} tag should suffice for now.
Yes we should be more consistent. No I don't agree that deleting the name is the best way to achieve that. I would like this discussion to include the people who put the Greek name there in the first place. At this point I don't think we have enough opinions to form a proper consensus.— RJH ( talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If the problem of the geology section is one of comprehensiveness, then surely the Geology of Mercury article should be re-merged back into this one? Serendi pod ous 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just for reference here is the August 25th 2006 version. It only used 23 references. -- Kheider ( talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be the biggest challenge, apart from the magnetosphere. It's tagged for cleanup and expansion, but I can't see a real good way to expand it. Most of the items I'd add are already referred to under Surface Geology and similar sections, so no need to duplicate those items here. As for cleanup, everything is referenced, and the section flows linearly from crust to core. Any ideas on how to clear these tags? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
could probably do with an image like this, since it focuses on naked eye observation. The transit image was better suited to the ground based telescope section. As for the extra Mariner 10 image, I couldn't find a place for it, so I ditched it, if that's OK. Serendi pod ous 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If all else fails I can get a picture of it on July 1st (elognation 21.8°) with my Canon EOS 300D using a Canon EF 50mm lens. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a clue what that means? Serendi pod ous 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't this article be edited? I want to add Fahrenheit temperatures and links to Celsius conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.171.206.112 ( talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Downer about the vandalism. However, I feel that the average American reader would benefit from adding Fahrenheit temperatures. Very few Americans use Celsius or Kelvin(unless they are employed in scientific research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.171.206.112 ( talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To quote: "Conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided. There are some exceptions: Articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked. "
But why would there be a "consensus among the contributors" not to add Fahrenheit conversions? It would help people to understand the article. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia whose audience is composed exclusively of scientists. It would make the article more useful to a wider audience. Just because Americans aren't the exclusive users of Wikipedia doesn't mean that the encyclopedia shouldn't be equally accessible to them. Tuna Night ( talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to WP:UNITS, as suggested by Cyclopia. Tuna Night ( talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The summary info (in the side box) gives mercury's mean surface temp at two latitudes as 340K (equator) and 200K (high latitude). The main article gives the (presumably global) mean surface temp as 442K, with reference to a NASA fact sheet. Someone care to research and resolve the apparent discrepancy? The "average" can mean a lot of different things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.222.78 ( talk) 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the main article could be improved if there were a link to a list of science fiction books and movies dealing with the planet Mercury, or involving Mercury in some way.
For instance, I seem to remember a movie that came out a couple years ago, where some researchers were traveling towards the Sun, and they stopped in at Mercury. What was the name of that movie? I wish I could remember. 198.177.27.29 ( talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The full set of phases of Mercury were suspected for some time before 1639. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which gas is the most common in the atmosphere?
2008-12-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 ( talk) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that with other planets we are brought automatically to their page instead of their disambiguation. Perhaps Mercury should follow suit? 69.243.42.249 ( talk) 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, but this note seems a bit hard to parse: "1/30 is the fractional equivalent to 2.1′." Perhaps it would make more sense if it were written out, like "1/30 of a degree is the fractional equivalent to 2.1 arcminutes." Kaldari ( talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest changing all of the following sentences:
Kaldari ( talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The introduction seems to lack any mention of the October 2008 Messenger pass and how much that mapped. 82.163.24.100 ( talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken in believing that there is some confusion between the second paragraph in Mercury (planet)#Ancient astronomers and the second paragraph in Venus#Historic_understanding? For example, both list Phosphoros as the name for the "Morning Star", presumably in reference to the current article. The text from 'In Latin, the word "Lucifer",' onward (in this article) could just as easily be plunked down on the Venus article. It seems squirrely to me.— RJH ( talk) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was bold and removed this text from the article until its conection with Mercury can be substantiated.:
Sorry.— RJH ( talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a concern regarding all the planet and planetoid pages, but I don't know where ot post such. If anyone knows where this comment is better suited, I'll copy it there. Regarding the planet (and minor planet) pages, should we add a reference regarding the formulas used in calculating the following? "Mean Density" -- do the pages use Wikipedia Page definition for "Mean Density" (R1 = (2a+b)/3 -- a being Equatorial [or longest] radius; b being the Polar [or shortest] radius)? Or are the pages using another formula (e.g., an average between axes (a+b)/2? Regarding Radius, and its affect on Volume, are the Volume values calculated using the Volumetric Radius (yet another radius calc), or Mean Radius, or Average Radius? "Volume" -- The Volumetric Radius (R3 = the CubeRoot of a2b), is used to determine Volume for "spherical" ellipsoids (i.e, those with a relatively circular equatorial zone -- hence, a relatively constant a axis value, and a different b axis value. For irregular shapes (planetoids [most asteroids, many minor planets], and satellites [moons]) require more-complex formulas to determine Volume. The radii around their "equatorial" or "polar" region are not constant -- lumps, bumps, cookie-dough shaped irregular "spheres", etc. Bottom line to my rambling ... I think we need to be consistent in our labeling. If the pages show "Mean Radius" or "Volume", one standard appraoch should be used. Since many technical astronomical sources are inconsistent, it may be a challenge. Still, I think the page(s) should note what formulas are used for such (or, at the very least, reference if a certain page is using a different [non-Wikipedia-defined] formula. My assumption is if a planet page uses the term "Mean Radius" or "Volume", it will agree with the Wikipedia page defining "Mean Radius" and "Volume" calcs for planets, planetoids. Tesseract501 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think something's logically not right with this sentence:
Water vapor is present, being brought to Mercury by some combination of processes such as: comets striking its surface, sputtering creating water "where none existed before from the ingredients of solar wind and Mercury rock" (both contain hydrogen and oxygen), and "reservoirs of water ice in small areas of Mercury's poles where local topography creates permanently shadowed spots in crater walls that might trap water over the age of the solar system"
Reservoir of water ice is not a process. Also, how can it be brought out of ice if it says it can be trapped forever? I know that ref says it but it's not a peer-revieved scientific literature, just news, while peer-reviewed paper, based on the abstract, doesn't mention the third possibility.-- Adi4000 ( talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the following:
First, it uses the word "currently", which has a chronological dependency. (See Wikipedia:MoS#Precise_language_for_dates.) Second, the [72] citation only appears to give the dates of closest approaches. It does not give the distance of closest approach this year. In fact, I see no data between 1983 and 2012. Thus the origin of the 82 million km value is something of a mystery to me. Any ideas? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to come up with another source, I asked about this minimum approach issue at Gravity Simulator and frankuitaalst came up with a 1,000 year chart. Since this is a Featured Article I am not if we can use it as a primary source. Though over at Mars#Orbit_and_rotation we do use an article written by the author of Solex (Ref 68: Mars' Orbital eccentricity over time). -- Kheider ( talk) 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can adjust the comment. But when the GravSim people were looking at the wiki-typo the two programs would obviously NOT produce the same result. Now that the typo is fixed the two programs do seem to agree quite well. I would put GravSim on the same level as Solex. There can be no long term accuracy with typos. This is part of the reason wiki is not a fan of {{OR}}. Thank you for double checking your numbers. -- Kheider ( talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Frank over at GravSim did an awesome chart of the change in inclination and eccentricity of Mercury over the next 20,000 years. -- Kheider ( talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Which gas is the most common in the atmosphere?
2009-03-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 ( talk) 13:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I am in fact a woman. I did not intend to joke, I just missed the infobox.
2009-03-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.101 ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
ThePlanets_Orbits_Mercury_PolarView.svg
While the Earth's orbit often is drawn as a circle, Mercury's is too eccentric. Especially a picture that purports to show Newtonian motion (faster near the sun), it would be proper to have an elliptical orbit drawn. This is exacerbated by having Mercury be of different sizes, which (combined with the actual circle) creates an illusion of some kind of perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwrede ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Further to the talk above in section "close approach cite", and following on from my request for clarification on the article, I also went to try out SOLEX for the first time. I only looked at trying to verify the close approaches claims up to 3000, and in brief I am satisfied the claims are both verifiable and, for what I checked, verified. The rest is a long post so I've wrapped it a hide template.
After I launched SOLEX (on a dual processor Windows Vista machine). I saw SOLEX consumed about 30 percent of the CPU when idle and about 50 percent when calculating, and this hindered by net connection, but it did work.
I typed "4" for the maximum star magnitude and then typed "1" to select DE421 "all planets and minor bodies".
The user manual states: "DE421. *New* The starting conditions for the numerical integration are read from a library fitting the latest JPL DE421 ephemerides (2008).2 Obliquity and precessional angles are computed using Laskar and Williams’ formulae." followed by note 3, which follows:
(3) (a) Laskar, J. “Secular Terms of Classical Planetary Theories Using the Results of General Theories” Astron. Astrophys. 157 (1986), 59. (b) Williams, J. G. “Contributions to the Earth’s Obliquity Rate, Precession and Nutation” Astron. J. 108 (1994), 711.
I then typed 2009,03,30 as the start date, and pressed enter to select the default 1 day step size.
SOLEX then displayed a table of the major planets and I checked Mercury's data:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2009-Mar-30 00:00 00 32 15.246 +2 6 48.29 1.34657923 2009-Mar-31 00:00 00 39 29.373 +3 1 48.71 1.34236608
... against NASA's horizons ephemeris:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2009-Mar-30 00:00 00 32 15.57 +02 06 50.7 1.34660450012112 2009-Mar-31 00:00 00 39 29.71 +03 01 51.1 1.34240113491257
I then pressed the "Y" key to run the close approach finder. I pressed "S" to choose Spatial. I typed "1/3" to select approaches between Mercury (1) and Earth (3). I typed 82110 for the closest approach ditance, in units of 1000 km. I typed 3500 for the end-year of the search.
The results showed a lot of approaches (I should have used 82100 as distance instead), but the 2679-06-10 approach was listed as 82.092295 Gm, which date agrees with NASA. Minimum approach distances became closer as the centuries went by.
SOLEX stored the results in the "USERDATA" folder as file "MINDIST.DAT", and this was human-readable.
Here is an edited excerpt.
Conditions of minimum spatial distance #1 #2 Date TT JD2000 Dm (Gm) -1 -3 2679/06/10 17:06:48 248160.21306 82.092295 ... -1 -3 2725/06/11 23:17:17 264962.47034 82.092270 ... -1 -3 2988/06/14 08:51:04 361024.86879 82.081392
How do those figures compare to NASA's horizons?
For the year 2679 Horizons found the closest about 5 minutes later than SOLEX:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2679-Jun-10 17:12 05 14 50.39 +20 28 33.3 .548752997931168
Google tells me .548752997931168 Astronomical Units = 82 092 351 km, or 82.092351 Gm, off by 56 kilometres.
For 2725 Horizons was again about 5 minutes later:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2725-Jun-11 23:23 05 19 43.05 +20 30 20.3 .548752892115657
.548752892115657 Astronomical Units = 82 092 335.2 km, or 82.0923352 Gm, off by 65 km.
For 2988 Horizons was yet again about 5 minutes later:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta
2988-Jun-14 08:56 05 35 11.23 +20 37 04.9 .548680119931325 .548680119931325 Astronomical Units = 82 081 448.6 kilometers, or 82.0814486 Gm, off by 57 km.
Finally Solex found the closest approach from 2009 to 2020 occuring at 2015:
Conditions of minimum spatial distance #1 #2 Date TT JD2000 Dm (Gm) -1 -3 2015/05/31 03:24:45 5628.64219 82.132823
And NASA finds one 5 minutes later:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2015-May-31 03:30 04 29 28.01 +19 34 29.8 .549023850264077
.549023850264077 Astronomical Units = 82 132 870 km, or 82.132870 Gm, off by 47 km.
It seems the difference between SOLEX and NASA, is a mostly constant difference of about 5 minutes and about 50 km.
84user ( talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what values Solex uses for GM? -- Kheider ( talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on the exosphere includes 2 different lists of what it is comprised of. This is both redundant and confusing. Any ideas for how to rewrite this section? Kaldari ( talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"It can only be viewed in morning or evening twilight." This can't be right. If it can be up to 28o from the sun, then for some parts of Earth's surface it can be visible when the sun is 28o below the horizon, and it can be up to 10o above the horizon when the sun is at least 18o below the horizon, at least in the tropics.
69.140.12.180 ( talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Nightvid
I removed the reference to the JPL info, because it is not relevant. It covers less than 1 part in 240 of the time span involved, and lists none of the threshold marks or the count of approaches.
The other cite is a problem. It doesn’t actually confirm the actual numbers, and does not go to the past. But the real issue here is that while the graph of the approaches is fine, the other graph is misleading and supports an erroneous position, that the minimum distances are getting smaller because of changes in Mercury’s inclination and eccentricity. The biggest part, by far, of the change is the decrease in the Earth-Sun distance at the time of the closest approaches. I’ll elaborate in another post. And for the inclination, which is on the graph, it is indeed falling relative to a fixed J2000 reference frame. But as Frank said, the Earth’s inclination is changing. This is why the relevant numbers are for the mean ecliptic of date. Mercury’s inclination has been increasing throughout, and will continue to do so for 7,500 years. Saros136 ( talk) 07:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
To reproduce the JPL-Horizons results:
1. Go to
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=1
2. Click change on "Time Span", change to 1950-01-01 and 2160-01-01 and click "Use Specified Times".
3. Click change on "Table Settings", make sure only "10,13,20,23,29" are selected. (#20 is the important one.) Click "Use Selected Settings".
4. Click "Generate Ephemeris" to generate JPL RESULTS. (You will need to wait 2 minutes for it to generate)
5. Use "Ctrl-F" to find the values " .5490" and the value " .5489". The value " .5488" is not listed...
Thus,
my results are reproducible using a reliable source.
-- Kevin Heider
I installed
Solex 10. It looks like a great/useful program, but I am a newbie to it. I used "[J] to Jump to Date" and "[X] to Show Osculating Elements" In the year 3000, Mercury has an inclination=6.95, in 4000 i=6.88, 6000=6.77, 7000=6.71, 10000=6.55, 14000=6.36, and 17000=6.25 (
Solex Screen grab for 17000AD). I fail to see support for your claim that "Mercury’s inclination has been increasing throughout, and will continue to do so for 7,500 years." It looks to me that the
GravSim plot is correct. --
Kheider (
talk)
21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I think for a general article it might be better to use the current J2000 ecliptic as a reference point than to confuse the matter by going into too much detail about how the Earth's orbital plane also changes and the ecliptic in several thousand years will be mildy different. Otherwise you also need to plot (and explain) the change in Earth's inclination and explain that Jupiter is basically influencing everything. The plots were created to simplify the explanation (without being too technical). -- Kheider ( talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
For long-term simulations the Earth's passive and rapidly changing inclination/ecliptic (compared to Jupiter's semi-fixed inclination) may not be the best reference point since the Sun-Jupiter barycenter has a huge influence in the rate-of-change for both eccentricity and inclination. But we are diverging from the main point of this thread. I simply did not like you calling the "for demonstration purposes" inclination/eccentricity chart for Mercury, "flat out wrong", simply because we did not make a plot of the Earth's eccentricity/inclination change or go into detail explaining why changes in Earth's eccentricity could be more significant. And obviously, the ecliptic is Earth-biased by definition.-- Kheider ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture at the beginning of the article shouldn't be a false color one. Maybe put that one in later on, but I think the first photo should be accurate. Knick99 ( talk) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the temperatures given are in Kelvin; since we are not all scientists or engineers could a Celsius and/or Fahrenheit be given too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 ( talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you make "regolith" a link - I had to copy and paste to get there - no trouble but it makes it easier and encorages research. Jay: UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.220.98 ( talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the URLs in what are now references 38 and 103, you will see that they are the same. Therefore at least one of them is obviously wrong. The first one is correct: the URL is for that paper by L.V. Ksanfomality. The correct URL for the other paper, by G. Colombo, is http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v208/n5010/abs/208575a0.html.
I cannot fix this because the article is semi-protected; would someone else please do so? -- 65.95.48.42 ( talk) 07:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It is realy sad if even the original source provides false data !!!
I dont know how the NASA got these wrong numbers ??? but if somebody would correct them.
I am too busy right now.
They following comparison is 100% wrong.
Mercurys surface isnt around .108 that of our planet !!
The surface of about 74 mio km^2 is correct but this is one 74 mio/ 510 mio (earth surface) .1451 earth not .108 ???
Dont know who NASA got this value.
I didnt check the other values but maybe they are wrong as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.137.112 ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes conversion error could be the case, but also the volume is strangely wrong i think. if the radius-ratio is correct one only has to calculate the 3 power of the radius-ratio and one has the volume-ratio. Interessting this value is also wrong about 4,5% ?? I would assume that both mercury and earth are almost perfect spheres so you can simple use this "trick" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.137.89 ( talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In the article "Geology of Mercury" it's written that "the Sun's tides on Mercury are about 17% stronger than the Moon’s on Earth", whereas in this one it's written that "the Sun’s tides on Mercury are about 17 times stronger than the Moon’s on Earth". I don't know which is the right value, and I can't check it. Can anyone do it? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.68.105.226 (
talk)
15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This page has a lot of useful infomation for a 13 year old girl like me and i am doing reasearch on Mercury and I got most of my project done on this website or that page. Thanks again amanda 13 from albany NY
~ Paratroopa Platoon #174
Why is this page so confussing? I mean I am doing a science project and I dont understand this website at all. Well anyways buh-bii!!<> ~ Megan LeBlanc 4-27-07
I use Wikipedia for most of my research, and when I need more, I can look at the external links. I'm 13 btw. 68.4.212.158 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Pizza, you added "A third theory argues that the outer parts of Mercury were "eroded" by the solar wind." as one of the explanations that have been presented for why Mercury has such a big core. How is this different from the theory mentioned immediately before it, in which Mercury's crust was vaporized and blown away by solar wind? Did it blow Mercury's crust away while it was still solid instead, in which case, how were such hellaciously strong solar winds possible? I think this could use more detail, or some kind of reference, or something. Bryan 02:15 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, and also, I just removed this paragraph:
because Earth doesn't have synchronous rotation, and all planets have tidal bulges so I don't see what's special about Mercury's. Bryan
Well this text here states: "The Sun created a significant tidal bulge on Mercury...", I suppose it was wrong to infer that Earth had a synchronous rotation. Pizza Puzzle
According to the table in Earth its temperature varies from 184K to 333K. The way I reckon that makes 149K between them, not 11K. Maybe its just a misunderstanding on my part as to what that 11K refers to; but it probably could be expressed more clearly.
OK, anonymous editor comes along and adds in the surface gravity compared to Earth, which is nice. But also "corrected" the straightforward surface gravity from 2.78 m/s² to 0.926 m/s². Fits with the compared-to-Earth number of 0.0945, at least. But meanwhile, using the numbers in there for the mass and diameter, I get a surface gravity of 3.70 m/s². Looking back through the history, it's been 2.78 m/s² since the page first got a surface gravity. What gives?!? -- John Owens (talk) 23:25, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
What is this?
Does anyone have a source for this, or is it speculation? -- Doradus 20:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Why does the Mercury article talk about Human colonisation when the other planetary articles do not?
Would it be possible to cite a source or external reference for the information about the potential for human colonization which is included in this article (something like a NASA study, a paper in a scientific journal, or a web site)? -- DannyZ 05:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not to put an ephemeris for mercury in the Wikipedia? The following ephemeris runs from January 1st, 2005 to January 1st, 2015. Right ascension and declination are in actual equinox. First column is right ascension, second declination, third elongation to sun. The ephemeris is valid for 0h UTC
On the Potential For Human Colonization subject it was written that a base on Mercury could use a heat sink to store up heat for the night. Does the author realize a mercurian day is about 60 days long? Or was the section talking about Earth's Moon still? If it was, it should be made clearer. (PS. I'm kinda new to wikipedia, correct me if I'm doing something wrong here)
From the article-
"Due to the lack of atmosphere to conduct heat, a thermal radiator hidden in the shadow of a sun screen would be able to reject heat into space even at the height of the Mercurian day. Alternatively, the base could use a heat sink during the day to store up heat for disposal during the night. Protecting mobile vehicles or robots against solar heating might prove much more difficult, however, which may limit the amount of surface activity that could be performed during the day."
(Personally, I'd make a mobile base that would just crawl along the surface at about 4 mph to stay in the nice twilight.) [unsigned]
I do wonder if a heat sink would be able to dissipate enough heat away in an near perfect vacuum. I've heard the shuttle will overheat if the bay doors don't open in orbit. By the way, have you seen Mercury recently? Yesterday was the first time I've seen it. It's just above the horizon just after it gets dark. The special treat is Venus, which is only 1 degree away. But you may already have heard about that. And by the way, lets not try to land on Venus any time soon- sulfuric acid rain, 400 degrees in the shade, etc. [unsigned]
I disagree with the page move to just Mercury instead of Mercury (planet). There was no discussion here on the talk page, and (more importantly) Mercury is unique among planets in that the word "mercury" has another meaning that is arguably just as common: that of the chemical element. (Well, not really unique I guess: "earth" can mean dirt, and "Pluto" might be a cartoon dog.) -- Doradus 01:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've just re-written quite a lot of the article for style and accuracy. I've removed two sections, on the potential for space colonisation and data about elongations; the first, because it seems to be pure speculation, and the second because it is an enormous block of table which seems out of place in an encyclopaedia article. Others might disagree with my removal; for convenience I've copied them both here:
A crater at the North or South pole of Mercury might prove to be one of the best locations for an off-Earth colony, as the temperature would remain almost constant (at around minus 200 degrees Celsius). This is because Mercury has negligible axial tilt and essentially no atmosphere to carry heat from its sunlit portion. It would thus always be dark at the bottom of a crater at the planet's pole, even a shallow one. Human activities could warm the colony to a comfortable temperature, and the low ambient temperature would make waste heat disposal easier than most locations off Earth.
A base elsewhere would have to be able to deal with many weeks of continuous intense solar heating followed by many weeks without any external heating at all. This would not necessarily be as difficult as it may first seem. Facilities could be buried under several meters of loose-packed regolith, which in a vacuum would serve as effective thermal insulation as well as a radiation shield. Similar approaches have been proposed for bases on Earth's Moon, which has two-week-long days followed by two-week-long nights. Due to the lack of atmosphere to conduct heat, a thermal radiator hidden in the shadow of a sun screen would be able to reject heat into space even at the height of the Mercurian day. Alternatively, the base could use a heat sink during the day to store up heat for disposal during the night. Protecting mobile vehicles or robots against solar heating might prove much more difficult, however, which may limit the amount of surface activity that could be performed during the day.
Greatest Eastern Elongation | Stationary, retrograde | Lower Conjunction | Stationary, prograde | Greatest Western Elongation | Upper Conjunction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
21 November 2004 (UTC) 22.2° | 30 November 2004 (UTC) | 10 December 2004 (UTC) | 20 December 2004 (UTC) | 29 December 2004 (UTC) 22.5° | 14 February 2005 (UTC) |
12 March 2005 (UTC) 18.3° | 19 March 2005 (UTC) | 29 March 2005 (UTC) | 11 April 2005 (UTC) | 26 April 2005 (UTC) 27.2° | 3 June 2005 (UTC) |
9 July 2005 (UTC) 26.2° | 22 July 2005 (UTC) | 5 August 2005 (UTC) | 15 August 2005 (UTC) | 23 August 2005 (UTC) 18.4° | 18 September 2005 (UTC) |
3 November 2005 (UTC) 23.5° | 14 November 2005 (UTC) | 24 November 2005 (UTC) | 4 December 2005 (UTC) | 12 December 2005 (UTC) 21.1° | 26 January 2006 (UTC) |
24 February 2006 (UTC) 18.1° | 2 March 2006 (UTC) | 12 March 2006 (UTC) | 24 March 2006 (UTC) | 8 April 2006 (UTC) 27.8° | 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
20 June 2006 (UTC) 24.9° | 4 July 2006 (UTC) | 18 July 2006 (UTC) | 28 July 2006 (UTC) | 7 August 2006 (UTC) 19.2° | 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
17 October 2006 (UTC) 24.8° | 28 October 2006 (UTC) | 11 November 2006 (UTC) | 17 November 2006 (UTC) | 25 November 2006 (UTC) 19.9° | 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
7 February 2007 (UTC) 18.2° | 13 February 2007 (UTC) | 23 February 2007 (UTC) | 7 March 2007 (UTC) | 22 March 2007 (UTC) 27.7° | 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
2 June 2007 (UTC) 23.4° | 15 June 2007 (UTC) | 28 June 2007 (UTC) | 10 July 2007 (UTC) | 20 July 2007 (UTC) 20.3° | 15 August 2007 (UTC) |
29 September 2007 (UTC) 26° | 12 October 2007 (UTC) | 23 October 2007 (UTC) | 1 November 2007 (UTC) | 8 November 2007 (UTC) 19° | 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
22 January 2008 (UTC) 18.6° | 28 January 2008 (UTC) | 6 February 2008 (UTC) | 18 February 2008 (UTC) | 3 March 2008 (UTC) 27.1° | 16 April 2008 (UTC) |
14 May 2008 (UTC) 21.8° | 26 May 2008 (UTC) | 7 June 2008 (UTC) | 19 June 2008 (UTC) | 1 July 2008 (UTC) 21.8° | 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
11 September 2008 (UTC) 26.9° | 24 September 2008 (UTC) | 6 October 2008 (UTC) | 15 October 2008 (UTC) | 22 October 2008 (UTC) 18.3° | 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
4 January 2009 (UTC) 19.3° | 11 January 2009 (UTC) | 20 January 2009 (UTC) | 1 February 2009 (UTC) | 13 February 2009 (UTC) 26.1° | 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
26 April 2009 (UTC) 20.4° | 7 May 2009 (UTC) | 18 May 2009 (UTC) | 30 May 2009 (UTC) | 13 June 2009 (UTC) 23.5° | 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
24 August 2009 (UTC) 27.4° | 6 September 2009 (UTC) | 20 September 2009 (UTC) | 28 September 2009 (UTC) | 6 October 2009 (UTC) 17.9° | 5 November 2009 (UTC) |
18 December 2009 (UTC) 20.3° | 26 December 2009 (UTC) | 4 January 2010 (UTC) | 15 January 2010 (UTC) | 27 January 2010 (UTC) 24.8° | 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
8 April 2010 (UTC) 19.3° | 18 April 2010 (UTC) | 28 April 2010 (UTC) | 11 May 2010 (UTC) | 26 May 2010 (UTC) 25.1° | 28 June 2010 (UTC) |
7 August 2010 (UTC) 24.2° | 20 August 2010 (UTC) | 3 September 2010 (UTC) | 12 September 2010 (UTC) | 19 September 2010 (UTC) 18.2° | 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
1 December 2010 (UTC) 21.2° | 10 December 2010 (UTC) | 20 December 2010 (UTC) | 30 December 2010 (UTC) | 9 January 2011 (UTC) 23.3° | 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
23 March 2011 (UTC) 18.6° | 30 March 2011 (UTC) | 9 April 2011 (UTC) | 22 April 2011 (UTC) | 7 May 2011 (UTC) 26.6° | 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
20 July 2011 (UTC) 26.8° | 2 August 2011 (UTC) | 17 August 2011 (UTC) | 26 August 2011 (UTC) | 3 September 2011 (UTC) 18.1° | 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
14 November 2011 (UTC) 22.7° | 24 November 2011 (UTC) | 4 December 2011 (UTC) | 14 December 2011 (UTC) | 23 December 2011 (UTC) 21.8° | 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
5 March 2012 (UTC) 18.2° | 11 March 2012 (UTC) | 21 March 2012 (UTC) | 3 April 2012 (UTC) | 18 April 2012 (UTC) 27.5° | 27 May 2012 (UTC) |
1 July 2012 (UTC) 25.7° | 14 July 2012 (UTC) | 28 July 2012 (UTC) | 7 August 2012 (UTC) | 16 August 2012 (UTC) 18.7° | 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
26 October 2012 (UTC) 24.1° | 7 November 2012 (UTC) | 17 November 2012 (UTC) | 26 November 2012 (UTC) | 4 December 2012 (UTC) 20.6° | 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
16 February 2013 (UTC) 18.1° | 22 February 2013 (UTC) | 4 March 2013 (UTC) | 16 March 2013 (UTC) | 31 March 2013 (UTC) 27.8° | 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
12 June 2013 (UTC) 24.3° | 25 June 2013 (UTC) | 9 July 2013 (UTC) | 20 July 2013 (UTC) | 30 July 2013 (UTC) 19.6° | 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
9 October 2013 (UTC) 25.3° | 21 October 2013 (UTC) | 1 November 2013 (UTC) | 10 November 2013 (UTC) | 18 November 2013 (UTC) 19.5° | 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
31 January 2014 (UTC) 18.4° | 6 February 2014 (UTC) | 15 February 2014 (UTC) | 27 February 2014 (UTC) | 14 March 2014 (UTC) 27.6° | 26 April 2014 (UTC) |
25 May 2014 (UTC) 22.7° | 7 June 2014 (UTC) | 19 June 2014 (UTC) | 1 July 2014 (UTC) | 12 July 2014 (UTC) 20.9° | 8 August 2014 (UTC) |
21 September 2014 (UTC) 26.4° | 4 October 2014 (UTC) | 16 October 2014 (UTC) | 25 October 2014 (UTC) | 1 November 2014 (UTC) 18.7° | 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
14 January 2015 (UTC) 18.9° | 21 January 2015 (UTC) | 30 January 2015 (UTC) | 11 February 2015 (UTC) | 24 February 2015 (UTC) 26.8° | 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
7 May 2015 (UTC) 21.2° | 19 May 2015 (UTC) | 30 May 2015 (UTC) | 11 June 2015 (UTC) | 24 June 2015 (UTC) 22.5° | 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
4 September 2015 (UTC) 27.1° | 17 September 2015 (UTC) | 30 September 2015 (UTC) | 8 October 2015 (UTC) | 16 October 2015 (UTC) 18.1° | 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
29 December 2015 (UTC) 19.7° | 5 January 2016 (UTC) | 14 January 2016 (UTC) | 25 January 2016 (UTC) | 7 February 2016 (UTC) 25.6° | 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
18 April 2016 (UTC) 19.9° | 29 April 2016 (UTC) | 9 May 2016 (UTC) | 21 May 2016 (UTC) | 5 June 2016 (UTC) 24.2° | 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
16 August 2016 (UTC) 27.4° | 30 August 2016 (UTC) | 12 September 2016 (UTC) | 21 September 2016 (UTC) | 28 September 2016 (UTC) 17.9° | 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
11 December 2016 (UTC) 20.8° | 19 December 2016 (UTC) | 28 December 2016 (UTC) | 8 January 2017 (UTC) | 19 January 2017 (UTC) 24.1° | 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
1 April 2017 (UTC) 19° | 10 April 2017 (UTC) | 20 April 2017 (UTC) | 2 May 2017 (UTC) | 17 May 2017 (UTC) 25.8° | 21 June 2017 (UTC) |
30 July 2017 (UTC) 27.2° | 12 August 2017 (UTC) | 26 August 2017 (UTC) | 4 September 2017 (UTC) | 12 September 2017 (UTC) 17.9° | 8 October 2017 (UTC) |
24 November 2017 (UTC) 22° | 3 December 2017 (UTC) | 13 December 2017 (UTC) | 23 December 2017 (UTC) | 1 January 2018 (UTC) 22.7° | 17 February 2018 (UTC) |
15 March 2018 (UTC) 18.4° | 22 March 2018 (UTC) | 1 April 2018 (UTC) | 14 April 2018 (UTC) | 29 April 2018 (UTC) 27° | 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
12 July 2018 (UTC) 26.4° | 25 July 2018 (UTC) | 9 August 2018 (UTC) | 18 August 2018 (UTC) | 26 August 2018 (UTC) 18.3° | 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
6 November 2018 (UTC) 23.3° | 17 November 2018 (UTC) | 27 November 2018 (UTC) | 6 December 2018 (UTC) | 15 December 2018 (UTC) 21.3° | 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
27 February 2019 (UTC) 18.1° | 5 March 2019 (UTC) | 15 March 2019 (UTC) | 27 March 2019 (UTC) | 11 April 2019 (UTC) 27.7° | 21 May 2019 (UTC) |
23 June 2019 (UTC) 25.1° | 7 July 2019 (UTC) | 21 July 2019 (UTC) | 31 July 2019 (UTC) | 9 August 2019 (UTC) 19.1° | 4 September 2019 (UTC) |
20 October 2019 (UTC) 24.6° | 31 October 2019 (UTC) | 11 November 2019 (UTC) | 20 November 2019 (UTC) | 28 November 2019 (UTC) 20.1° | 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
10 February 2020 (UTC) 18.2° | 16 February 2020 (UTC) | 26 February 2020 (UTC) | 9 March 2020 (UTC) | 24 March 2020 (UTC) 27.8° | 4 May 2020 (UTC) |
4 June 2020 (UTC) 23.6° | 17 June 2020 (UTC) | 1 July 2020 (UTC) | 12 July 2020 (UTC) | 22 July 2020 (UTC) 20.1° | 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
1 October 2020 (UTC) 25.8° | 14 October 2020 (UTC) | 25 October 2020 (UTC) | 3 November 2020 (UTC) | 10 November 2020 (UTC) 19.1° | 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Why does the table give: Declination 61.45° I thought that declination of planets is variable. Cartes du Ciel says that mercury's declination is now +03°41'04.1? [unsigned]
"The approaching spacecraft cannot use aerobraking to help enter orbit around Mercury since it has no atmosphere and must rely on rocket boosters." MESSENGER "will explore the planet's atmosphere, composition and structure." How can it explore the planet's atmosphere if it has none? Teply 04:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was: consensus was to not move— jiy ( talk) 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In the section Surface Features the following is said:"...it was heavily bombarded by comets and asteroids for a period of about 8000 million years." AFIK, our solar system is only about 4500 million years old. Shouldn't it rather say 800 million years or something like that? Bye. CalRis
"Mercury (planet)" applies the phrases "Morning Star " and "Evening Star" to Mercury. The separate articles "Morning Star" and the like refer to Venus. 81.132.55.206 15:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the German version of this article, and I think the way theirs is laid out is better than this is at the moment. It allows coverage of all significant aspects of the planet in a very clear and organised way. Below is their TOC - what would anyone think about rearranging our article along these lines? Worldtraveller 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Structure
2 Orbit and rotation
3 Research
4 Observation
5 Cultural history
6 See also
7 Literature
8 Web links
I took this TOC and put all of our current content into it - see Mercury (planet)/temp. It highlighted some gaps in our coverage which I've started to fill. If no-one objects I'll move what's in the temp page to this page later today. Worldtraveller 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"Tentative suggestions have been made that Mercury may be a Chthonian planet." Can anyone provide any citation for this? It is also mentioned on the chthonian planet page, no citation there either. Chaos syndrome 17:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The section edit boxes all appear at Orbit. Could someone fix that? I don't know how to fix formatting things of that sort, as far as I know those are automatic and I don't have experience dealing with such things. -- Keflavich 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The section on cultural understanding is one that needs work. Can anyone add to it? Once it's a decent overview I'm thinking this article is beginning to look like it might be a worthy FA candidate. I'm just adding references and tidying up prose in the rest of the article at the moment. Worldtraveller 10:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm editing the article to make all spellings consistently follow American usage. This is because the oldest version of the article used American spellings (kilometer, not kilometre). Angr ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The NASA maps of the planet make the surface look brown. Yet I've seen artist's impressions that make the planet grey, like the Moon. Does anyone know which is correct? The Singing Badger 02:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The maximum magnitude of Mercury seems to be -1.9. A standard magnitude seems to be -0.42. The average magnitude seems to be 0.0. The minimum is about 1.3 or a slightly higher number. The numbers in the article seem to be wrong.
According to Astronomy magazine, Mercury will have an apparent magnitude of -0.9 on June 9, which is half a magnitude brighter than the maximum of -0.42 listed here. That -1.9 seems reasonable, but the -.42 is clearly wrong-- Syd Henderson 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
Shouldn/t Mercury's distance from the Sun appear near the top of the article? I imagine this # is buried in some astro. shorthand in that table, but it should be more plain, no? Sfahey 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The explanation given sounds like it is referring to phenomena predicted by special relativity, not general relativity. That is incorrect, as the SR contribution is only about 7"/century, and was already taken into account before Einstein published his explanation based on GR. I don't know an easy way to explain how the anomalous precession derives from GR, or I'd fix this myself. -- Mmm 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The GR contribution as given in "The Fundamentals of General Relativity" published in 1916 by Einstein can be derived form an effective potential
where l is the mass specific angular momentum, c the speed of light, and r the distance to the center of mass. The calculation is purely classical, neglecting any chance in mass. The potential is effective in the sense that the trajectory is calculated as if there would be a potential of that size. But, it depends on the angular momentum, a property of the planet rather than the gravitational field of the Sun.
Moreover, the effective potential causes other chances to the trajectory rather than only an advance of the perihelion.
A pure advance of the perihelion would be decribed as
where p,e and k are constants and the angle between the space componentents in cartesian coordinates. Such a trajectory would result from a potential of the form
84.169.196.154 09:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the SR contribution is indeed about 15"/century. This is the result of the following simulation.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
main(){
int N = 1500000,i; /* number of iteration steps, counter for time */ double AE = 1.49598E11; /* AU average distance Earth to Sun */ double c = 299792458; /* speed of light */ double e = 0.0256; /* eccentricity of orbit */ double a = 0.3871; /* semi majajor axis */ double pi = 4*atan(1); /* 3.1415 .. */ double wfak = (180/pi)*3600; /* convertion to arc seconds */ double rx = a*(1-e)*AE; /* distance mercury sun */ double ry = 0; double T = 87.969*(60*60*24); /* siderial period */ double vx = 0; double vy = AE*(2*pi*a)*(1+e)/T; /* max. orbital speed */
double GM=1.32712440018E20; /* G mass of Sun */ double mcc = 1; /* rest energy */ double v; double E,m,px,py,p; /* energy, mass, momentum, */ double beta,flag=1; double w0,w1; /* initial and final position of perihelion */ double dt = T/(double)N; /* interation step - time interval */ double r0,r; /* distance to sun */ int max = 100*N; int count = 0; /* number of perihelion transits */
v = sqrt(vx*vx+vy*vy); beta = v/c; E = mcc/sqrt(1-beta*beta); r = sqrt(rx*rx+ry*ry); m = E/(c*c); py = m * v; px = 0;
for(i=0;i<max;i++){
rx += vx*dt; ry += vy*dt; r = sqrt( rx*rx + ry*ry );
if (r < r0 && i>1) { if (flag==1) printf("aphelion %d %f %f\n",i,r,wfak*ry/rx); flag=-1; } if (r > r0 && i>1) { if (flag==-1) { printf("perihelion %d %f %f\n",i,r,wfak*ry/rx); if (count==0) w0 = wfak*ry/rx; w1 = wfak*ry/rx; count++; } flag=1; } r0 = r; /* dp = F * dt */ px -= ((m*GM)/(r*r*r))*rx * dt; py -= ((m*GM)/(r*r*r))*ry * dt; p = sqrt(px*px+py*py); /* E^2 = (m0 c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 */ E = sqrt(mcc*mcc + (p*c)*(p*c)); /* E = m c*c */ m = E/(c*c); /* v = p/m */ vx = px/m; vy = py/m; } printf("\n\nSR contribution /century %f\n", (100*86400*364.24)/T*(w1-w0)/(count-1));
}
This result looks quite plausible, since the relative mass dilation
is even somewhat smaller than the advance of perihelion measured in radians.
It looks unrealistic to measure such small pertubations. At least there are many speculation about all kind of pertubations of the orbit in that order of magnitude, which are not completely understood. 84.169.211.110 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that Pluto's not a planet anymore, Mercury is probably the smallest planet. Discuss. PhoenixSeraph 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the introductory sentence to say that Mercury is the "innermost and smallest planet" so that this article can be internally Wiki-consistent with the Pluto article and the Solar System template which both recognize Pluto as a dwarf planet and thus inherently support the notion that Mercury is the smallest planet in the solar system. I have, however, moved the dispute to a footnote where visitors may see that Mercury's status as the smallest planet is dependent on the recent IAU redefinition and that this is disputed by some unsourced group of people. Actual references to reputable disputes of the reclassification (something more than a blog entry) would be welcome and perhaps aid the Wiki-community in coming to a consensus as to how the dispute should be dealt with. However, I wish to make clear that from my perspective it is unacceptable to hedge Mercury's status as the smallest planet simply because of personal attachment to Pluto without adequate sourcing as to a reputable dispute concerning Pluto's status, particularly given the fact that elsewhere Wikipedia clearly supports the IAU redefinition as definitive. Bojangles04 16:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
For sake of neutrality, I don't support adding the word "smallest" to the lead, especially to today's featured article. The lead should only contain information that is completely undisputed, and I believe it can do without a size ranking. So "Mercury is the innermost planet..." would be sufficient as the first sentence.
By the way, I generally support IAU's redefinition. However, we should put firm astronomical facts first and try not to fill the article with terminological and linguistical arguments.
80.235.56.16
20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There is destructive "graffiti" at the end of the first paragraph. I tried to edit it out but it does not appear on the editing page. Anyone know how we can get this removed? [unsigned]
The statement "its greatest angular separation from the Sun (greatest elongation) is only 28.3° (it can only be seen in twilight)." came as a big surprise to me. Can any one please explain why Mercury cannot be seen at dawn as well, half a Mercurian year (44 days) later?
Thanks, -- AVM 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it amusing that Mercury is the featured article on the Main Page the very same day that Pluto is on the Main Page "In the news" for its "demotion" from planet. Agent 86 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Mercury's gravity is too small for it to hold any substatial atmosphere. Yet Titan's atmosphere is thicker than earths, despite having much less gravity than either Earth or Mars. So how can this be the reason Mercury has such a small atmoshere? 142.68.186.29 23:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I found this added to the end of the first paragraph from 210.15.211.182: "Mercury does not have any moons, but is a tiny bit bigger than our moon." GravityIsForSuckers 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I know we're all excited about Pluto no longer being a planet, but honestly the "smallest planet in the solar system" in the first sentence is going to be misleading to a lot of people. I had added the clarification "smallest of the 8 planets in the solar system" but I see that's been removed. Footnotes are also well and good, but the average person isn't going to read them. I strongly suggest being a bit more explicit about where it stands, at least until Pluto is no longer considered a planet by the average man on the street - probably a few more years at least. Stevage 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the article to a page on NASA, im gettin different values... Are we using old figures here... or is NASA...
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html
-- Nbound 01:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comparing sources... both seem to be from the same publisher, same year with different authors...
Current Source: Potassium 31.7% Sodium 24.9% Atomic Oxygen 9.5% Argon 7.0% Helium 5.9% Molecular Oxygen 5.6% Nitrogen 5.2% Carbon dioxide 3.6% Water 3.4% Hydrogen 3.2%
Other Source: Atmospheric composition: 42% Oxygen (O2), 29% Sodium (Na), 22% Hydrogen (H2), 6% Helium (He), 0.5% Potassium (K), possible trace amounts of Argon (Ar), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water (H2O), Nitrogen (N2), Xenon (Xe), Krypton (Kr), Neon (Ne)
there seems to be a significant difference :| -- Nbound 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The argument for the advance of Mercury's perihelion does not appear to view the orbit of Mercury from the perspective of the focus of its orbit, which is the centre of the sun. If this were applied and taken to its logical conclusion, by starting from the basis of the average velocity/mass and applying mass dilation in the hemisphere of the aphelion, a lower than average mass would result and thus a reduced velocity at the aphelion and an undershooting of its predicted position. And as the time Mercury spends in the hemisphere of the aphelion is far greater than that in the opposite, the result would be to more than cancel out the suggested perihelion advance, which in turn would have the overall effect of reversing the observed precession. I would be interested in an explanation. Romun 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss at Talk:Mercury --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Within the section titled "Observation", several things appear to be wrong:
Icek 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article should have a picture of the double sunrise, if possible. A better version of this graphic, [ [4]] Thanks, CarpD (^_^)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism spotted, but I am not able to edit, since the vandalism is not visible in edit mode. Salimi 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Mercury's heat may go up to 800 degree f, on the other side of the planet it may lower to 200 f below zero. It would take 85 Earth days to get around the sun.
Mercury has no moons, it does have volcanos. Mercury has more than 500 volcanos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.42.130 ( talk) 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Dominic Tarro Delray Beach Fl, (289-2969)
Hey everybody,
one http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/why_mercury/index.html one find an estimation for a core size with 65% of the whole planet size and NOT as written in the article 42%. My guess is 65% by mass = 42% by volume; both numbers being subject to assumtions which have credibility, but are unproven. Neil And what is meant by planet size, part of the volume or part of the total mass in Mercury's mass distribution? (Maybe this makes the different between Messanger-site and wikipedia?) Can someone comment on it? (Sorry for my poor English, I am just a German guy.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.206.107.106 ( talk) 14:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
With the values of aphelion distance and perihelion distance from this article, I calculate the semi-minor-axis to = 56 671 637,01 km (believe me - i used my (by me) developed equation : b = sqr ( ((aph + per) / 2)² + ((aph - per) / 2)²) , but i dont want to explain the equation - its hard to write for me in English - test and compare it with every other accepted equation (for this planet, and if you want, for any other planet and object) - you will see : I'm right). With the same equation you can calculate the semi-minor-axis for article of planets, which only give the semi-MAJOR-axis. For the orbital circumference i have calculated with numerical integration the very exact value of : 359 976 796,63 km - test and compare it with the exact values of the semi-major-axis and semi-minor-axis, on this link : http://www.mathematik.ch/anwendungenmath/numint/ or any other exact equation for the circumference of an ellipse ...you will see, I'm right. I can't make the changes in this article, because I'm only signed up at the german wikipedia. But if nobody make this mathematically correct changes in this article maybe I sign up here, and make the changes for all planets, who gives the aphelion and perihelion distances, but only the semi-major-axis, and not the semi-minor-axis - and just a not-exactly orbital circumference, like in the Mercury-article. Lots of Greets from Austria, Pygmalion1 (24. February 2007 , 12:03 (CET))
First, b can be calculated using only the semi-major axis a and eccentricity e. I got a number only about 450 meters different than yours, ending with a .453 I used an infinite series formula for the circumference (which uses a and e), getting 359976739.60 km. I calculated it with Excel. (Then decided to check against an even higher-precision calculator-right on the money) The problem here is that the given numbers aren't precise enough to calculate to the nearest km. Lower e and higher a gives greater circumference, changing the numbers (adding or subtracting .5 and .000000005) gives a range of 6.6 km.
Actually, the actual perihelion varies by hundreds of km. Saros136 11:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I threw together an animated version of the orbital resonance graphic, I think it may help illustrate the idea a little better, at least to the layman, but I wanted to see what you all think first. -- Age234 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the strength of Mercury's magnetic field quoted (1% of Earth's) is in error. I have two astronomy textbooks ("Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond" and "World's Apart") in front of me that say it is "about 10^-4 of earth's" and "about 1/3000th of earth's", respectively. 141.209.165.222 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if Wikipedia allows lowercase titles in the future, this article can be at Mercury while the article on element would be at mercury. Voortle 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In the main pic for this article, there is something that appears to be a prominant surface feature. It's the thing that looks like an arm with a Pac-Man puppet reaching down from the top of the planet. I couldn't find mention of that particular feature in the article, so I'm wondering if the "feature" is just an area of the planet that wasn't scanned by whatever probe or telescope took the picture. If somebody has that info, please include it in the article so I and others like me will be less confused! JSC ltd 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
On Yahoo just minutes ago, apparently... [5] Didn't put it in the article because it was made featured-status by likely-superior writers, who'd know better how to incorporate it. -- Chr.K. 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Sidebar has only one reference, for one item, to detail where the information came from. Could someone actually support these data? This is also applicable to the other planets. --MatthewKarlsen
I've checked dictionary.com and the IPA pronunciation is ˈmɜrkyəri. May i know why it is an ɹi behind? Thanks. — Sengkang 04:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Despite its slow 176-day-long rotation..." Is this right? Elsewhere it says 58 days. Richard75 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The article gives a variety of atmospheric constituents but is unreferenced. Here at NSSDC they give values which are very different. I would be inclined to believe NASA rather than the unreferenced values given in this article, at least that data is traceable. However, does anyone have a reference for the values that are currently in the article? Deuar 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am an editor on Simple English Wikipedia, and I have researched the facts about the "Very Good Article" status. In Simple English Wikipedia, "Very Good Articles" are not meant to have a single red link, yet I see that this article has one red link in the category: Advance of perihelion. Also, in the same category, there is a link that makes no sense. Either you fix these, or delete them. otherwise, this page may be likely to lose its very good article status. 83.76.249.93 11:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added a section called "The Future of Mercury". I was not sure what section to put this in or if people even want this included in the article. I do think some of this is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. I mentioned, "Current theories suggest that in 7.7 billion years, when the Sun has exhausted its central supply of hydrogen and has become a
red giant, that the Sun will engulf Mercury." References:
NewScientist and
The Once and Future Sun
--
Kheider
20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There's an space splitting the value of Mercury's eccentricity (0.205 30294). I guess it misses a "6" in that place but I'm not an expert. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.38.227 ( talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I added information about Mercury as a former moon of Venus as the last paragraph of Internal Structure which it probably is but this is rarely mentioned. There is also the question of it being the smallest planet; I consider it to be the smallest MAJOR planet. See my website astro-taxonomy.net for a definition of planet and major planet. Great article by the way, deserving of FA assessment. Star Guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
First images in: see: Encounter Observation Phases
Serendipod ous 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've looked at this on two different browsers, and both times, when I look at the "Radar Image of Polar Ice Cap" photo, it's positioned in such a way that it's cutting off text in the paragraph about the Geological makeup of Mercury. I'm just learning about formatting, so I'm not sure how to do it, but maybe someone else can fix it? Editortothemasses ( talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a reading of this article. MasterDirk 05:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the intro to indicate that Mariner was "the first of two satellites to approach Mercury...", now that MESSENGER has arrived at Mercury. Hopefully this isn't considered controversial... TMSTKSBK ( talk) 14:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I like that the Messenger image is now the main photo for the page, as it's cool to have a hi-res picture when one wasn't previously available. I liked the old photo, though, for one reason - the color. I think a black and white photo detracts from the "atmosphere" of the article - Mercury, in my mind, has always had a reddish tint to it. I liked the Mariner photo that was up before, and is now found lower on the page. I have a colorized version of the Messenger photo that I matched (more or less) to the color on the Mariner photograph which I think might look good (or anyone else could make one, I don't really care) - the only problem is copyright info. On NASA's site, the Messenger photo is credited variously to Nasa, Johns Hopkins, and at least one or two other research institutes. I don't know what that means for a derivative (colorized) verision, if such a thing would even be possible. Anybody have any thoughts/input about the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.165.236 ( talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Mariner 10 no longer represents the best source or most recent of information regarding Mercury. -- Starks ( talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Stupid question, but the article does not (so far as I can see) answer it. The maps of Mercury make it look brown, and I've seen images (like this NASA artist's impression) depicting it that way. Yet I remember reading somewhere that Mercury is in fact grey, and the maps were not intended to represent its true colour. Am I right about this? Rubble pile ( talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
it's brown http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132 i think this should be the front image —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions "heavily cratered" - can someone add to the surface geology section a statement discussing whether Mercury is more heavily cratered than, say, the Moon? And explain why? I envision asteroids smashing into Mercury at higher velocity than they'd smash into anything else because they've been pulled by the Sun more strongly and for longer than an asteroid smashing into anything else in the solar system. Tempshill ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
now this should definitely be the front image, it's very good quality and TRUE color [and almost total perspective) http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?page=1&gallery_id=2&image_id=143 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Crust = 100-200 km Mantle = 600 km Core = 1800 km Total = 2500-2600 km But Mercury's radius is only 2440 km!
I have read elsewhere that the 600 km refers to the lithosphere, which consists of the crust + the mantle.
Eroica (
talk)
14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What's this blue stuff the Messanger probe found? Shouldn't we all go nuts about it? I'll sign later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.226.180 ( talk) 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I reworded the intro somewhat, hopefully for the better, and added two fact tags: I've always seen the symbol for Mercury described as Hermes' caduceus, not the caduceus plus head and hat, and the Sumerian name looks like it might have lumped phonograms and determinatives together. sd/- sumit kwami ( talk) 06:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We are all children of the sun, we all came out of the sun so why do we fight? We all came from one source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.91.250 ( talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What is up with all the attacks today? Have the vandals decid to target this page? Or some school asked about a paper on mercury and they are venting their frustrations. Should we request a semi-prot? Samuel Sol ( talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Basing myself on this comment during Neptune's FAC. I'm removing from the main article the foreign names of the planet. And copying it below.
Samuel Sol ( talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(<-) Nice new source mate. Just to be sure, book? Journal? To update to the the cite template. Samuel Sol ( talk) 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A note for future editors: Some sources (including the NASA source) precede the Sumerian transcription with "MUL". "MUL" was a symbol used by the Sumerians to designate that they were referring to a star or planet, but it is not considered part of the actual name. Some sources superscript it like so: MULUDU.IDIM.GU4.UD. Also, the "4" is a reference number in the Sumero-Akkadian Transliteration system to designate which of several syllables a certain Sumerian sign is most likely designating. Some sources list the Sumerian name as simply "Udu-idum-gu-ud", which is basically correct. The version I have used in the article is exactly how it is printed in the original Hunger and Pingree article (which is considered the definitive source on the matter). Kaldari ( talk) 20:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that every hour this article pops up on my watch list with s.o. reverting vandalism. It's FA - shouldn't it have some minimal protection? — kwami ( talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Our article currently says that Mercury has been known since the 3rd millennium BC, but we don't provide any reference for this statement. The MUL.APIN record referenced in the citation I added only dates back to about 1370 B.C. Anyone know of earlier records than that? Kaldari ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Parts of this article look like they would not survive a FAC. There are long stretches of facts with no citations to back them up and the citations are not properly formatted. I'm also seeing a few stub paragraphs. This may need an FAR soon.— RJH ( talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The mean temperature is listed as 452 K; but the Mercury fact sheet lists 440 K. I'm not sure where the 452 came from and that makes the other temperature values dubious.— RJH ( talk) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How old is Mercury? The articles on Sun and Earth claim their respective ages to be nearly same 4-5 billion years. So I guess, Mercury too must be a twin. Anwar ( talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Rocks on Mercury have not been available, so no direct answer can be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 ( talk) 11:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The source cited for the axial tilt gives a value of "~0", rather than 0.01 as listed in the article body. So it is unclear where that value came from. The conclusion of the following reference gives a value of 1.6 arcminutes for the mean obliquity:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)That would correspond to 0.027°. Does anybody have a better reference? If not perhaps the article should use the above? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I wonder what is wrong with the doi field that it doesn't complete the URL properly?— RJH ( talk)
Multiple astronomy articles present ancient Greek names for the objects, including Sirius, Venus, Mars, &c. For some reason, editor "Rubble pile" has taken a special interest in removing the Greek name from this article. Is there a consensus for the removal of the Greek name from this page in particular? I do think we should have a consistent policy about this across wikipedia. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) --
Dr pda (
talk)
11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[De-indenting] Citing to a reliable source is a different issue than removing the Greek name because a transliteration exists. The citation issue is a problem for much of this article. In other astronomy articles the citation does exist. Simply adding a {{ Fact}} tag should suffice for now.
Yes we should be more consistent. No I don't agree that deleting the name is the best way to achieve that. I would like this discussion to include the people who put the Greek name there in the first place. At this point I don't think we have enough opinions to form a proper consensus.— RJH ( talk) 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If the problem of the geology section is one of comprehensiveness, then surely the Geology of Mercury article should be re-merged back into this one? Serendi pod ous 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just for reference here is the August 25th 2006 version. It only used 23 references. -- Kheider ( talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be the biggest challenge, apart from the magnetosphere. It's tagged for cleanup and expansion, but I can't see a real good way to expand it. Most of the items I'd add are already referred to under Surface Geology and similar sections, so no need to duplicate those items here. As for cleanup, everything is referenced, and the section flows linearly from crust to core. Any ideas on how to clear these tags? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
could probably do with an image like this, since it focuses on naked eye observation. The transit image was better suited to the ground based telescope section. As for the extra Mariner 10 image, I couldn't find a place for it, so I ditched it, if that's OK. Serendi pod ous 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If all else fails I can get a picture of it on July 1st (elognation 21.8°) with my Canon EOS 300D using a Canon EF 50mm lens. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a clue what that means? Serendi pod ous 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't this article be edited? I want to add Fahrenheit temperatures and links to Celsius conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.171.206.112 ( talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Downer about the vandalism. However, I feel that the average American reader would benefit from adding Fahrenheit temperatures. Very few Americans use Celsius or Kelvin(unless they are employed in scientific research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.171.206.112 ( talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To quote: "Conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided. There are some exceptions: Articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked. "
But why would there be a "consensus among the contributors" not to add Fahrenheit conversions? It would help people to understand the article. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia whose audience is composed exclusively of scientists. It would make the article more useful to a wider audience. Just because Americans aren't the exclusive users of Wikipedia doesn't mean that the encyclopedia shouldn't be equally accessible to them. Tuna Night ( talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to WP:UNITS, as suggested by Cyclopia. Tuna Night ( talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The summary info (in the side box) gives mercury's mean surface temp at two latitudes as 340K (equator) and 200K (high latitude). The main article gives the (presumably global) mean surface temp as 442K, with reference to a NASA fact sheet. Someone care to research and resolve the apparent discrepancy? The "average" can mean a lot of different things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.222.78 ( talk) 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the main article could be improved if there were a link to a list of science fiction books and movies dealing with the planet Mercury, or involving Mercury in some way.
For instance, I seem to remember a movie that came out a couple years ago, where some researchers were traveling towards the Sun, and they stopped in at Mercury. What was the name of that movie? I wish I could remember. 198.177.27.29 ( talk) 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The full set of phases of Mercury were suspected for some time before 1639. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which gas is the most common in the atmosphere?
2008-12-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 ( talk) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that with other planets we are brought automatically to their page instead of their disambiguation. Perhaps Mercury should follow suit? 69.243.42.249 ( talk) 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, but this note seems a bit hard to parse: "1/30 is the fractional equivalent to 2.1′." Perhaps it would make more sense if it were written out, like "1/30 of a degree is the fractional equivalent to 2.1 arcminutes." Kaldari ( talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest changing all of the following sentences:
Kaldari ( talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The introduction seems to lack any mention of the October 2008 Messenger pass and how much that mapped. 82.163.24.100 ( talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken in believing that there is some confusion between the second paragraph in Mercury (planet)#Ancient astronomers and the second paragraph in Venus#Historic_understanding? For example, both list Phosphoros as the name for the "Morning Star", presumably in reference to the current article. The text from 'In Latin, the word "Lucifer",' onward (in this article) could just as easily be plunked down on the Venus article. It seems squirrely to me.— RJH ( talk) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I was bold and removed this text from the article until its conection with Mercury can be substantiated.:
Sorry.— RJH ( talk) 18:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a concern regarding all the planet and planetoid pages, but I don't know where ot post such. If anyone knows where this comment is better suited, I'll copy it there. Regarding the planet (and minor planet) pages, should we add a reference regarding the formulas used in calculating the following? "Mean Density" -- do the pages use Wikipedia Page definition for "Mean Density" (R1 = (2a+b)/3 -- a being Equatorial [or longest] radius; b being the Polar [or shortest] radius)? Or are the pages using another formula (e.g., an average between axes (a+b)/2? Regarding Radius, and its affect on Volume, are the Volume values calculated using the Volumetric Radius (yet another radius calc), or Mean Radius, or Average Radius? "Volume" -- The Volumetric Radius (R3 = the CubeRoot of a2b), is used to determine Volume for "spherical" ellipsoids (i.e, those with a relatively circular equatorial zone -- hence, a relatively constant a axis value, and a different b axis value. For irregular shapes (planetoids [most asteroids, many minor planets], and satellites [moons]) require more-complex formulas to determine Volume. The radii around their "equatorial" or "polar" region are not constant -- lumps, bumps, cookie-dough shaped irregular "spheres", etc. Bottom line to my rambling ... I think we need to be consistent in our labeling. If the pages show "Mean Radius" or "Volume", one standard appraoch should be used. Since many technical astronomical sources are inconsistent, it may be a challenge. Still, I think the page(s) should note what formulas are used for such (or, at the very least, reference if a certain page is using a different [non-Wikipedia-defined] formula. My assumption is if a planet page uses the term "Mean Radius" or "Volume", it will agree with the Wikipedia page defining "Mean Radius" and "Volume" calcs for planets, planetoids. Tesseract501 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think something's logically not right with this sentence:
Water vapor is present, being brought to Mercury by some combination of processes such as: comets striking its surface, sputtering creating water "where none existed before from the ingredients of solar wind and Mercury rock" (both contain hydrogen and oxygen), and "reservoirs of water ice in small areas of Mercury's poles where local topography creates permanently shadowed spots in crater walls that might trap water over the age of the solar system"
Reservoir of water ice is not a process. Also, how can it be brought out of ice if it says it can be trapped forever? I know that ref says it but it's not a peer-revieved scientific literature, just news, while peer-reviewed paper, based on the abstract, doesn't mention the third possibility.-- Adi4000 ( talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the following:
First, it uses the word "currently", which has a chronological dependency. (See Wikipedia:MoS#Precise_language_for_dates.) Second, the [72] citation only appears to give the dates of closest approaches. It does not give the distance of closest approach this year. In fact, I see no data between 1983 and 2012. Thus the origin of the 82 million km value is something of a mystery to me. Any ideas? Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to come up with another source, I asked about this minimum approach issue at Gravity Simulator and frankuitaalst came up with a 1,000 year chart. Since this is a Featured Article I am not if we can use it as a primary source. Though over at Mars#Orbit_and_rotation we do use an article written by the author of Solex (Ref 68: Mars' Orbital eccentricity over time). -- Kheider ( talk) 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can adjust the comment. But when the GravSim people were looking at the wiki-typo the two programs would obviously NOT produce the same result. Now that the typo is fixed the two programs do seem to agree quite well. I would put GravSim on the same level as Solex. There can be no long term accuracy with typos. This is part of the reason wiki is not a fan of {{OR}}. Thank you for double checking your numbers. -- Kheider ( talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Frank over at GravSim did an awesome chart of the change in inclination and eccentricity of Mercury over the next 20,000 years. -- Kheider ( talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Which gas is the most common in the atmosphere?
2009-03-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 ( talk) 13:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I am in fact a woman. I did not intend to joke, I just missed the infobox.
2009-03-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.101 ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
ThePlanets_Orbits_Mercury_PolarView.svg
While the Earth's orbit often is drawn as a circle, Mercury's is too eccentric. Especially a picture that purports to show Newtonian motion (faster near the sun), it would be proper to have an elliptical orbit drawn. This is exacerbated by having Mercury be of different sizes, which (combined with the actual circle) creates an illusion of some kind of perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwrede ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Further to the talk above in section "close approach cite", and following on from my request for clarification on the article, I also went to try out SOLEX for the first time. I only looked at trying to verify the close approaches claims up to 3000, and in brief I am satisfied the claims are both verifiable and, for what I checked, verified. The rest is a long post so I've wrapped it a hide template.
After I launched SOLEX (on a dual processor Windows Vista machine). I saw SOLEX consumed about 30 percent of the CPU when idle and about 50 percent when calculating, and this hindered by net connection, but it did work.
I typed "4" for the maximum star magnitude and then typed "1" to select DE421 "all planets and minor bodies".
The user manual states: "DE421. *New* The starting conditions for the numerical integration are read from a library fitting the latest JPL DE421 ephemerides (2008).2 Obliquity and precessional angles are computed using Laskar and Williams’ formulae." followed by note 3, which follows:
(3) (a) Laskar, J. “Secular Terms of Classical Planetary Theories Using the Results of General Theories” Astron. Astrophys. 157 (1986), 59. (b) Williams, J. G. “Contributions to the Earth’s Obliquity Rate, Precession and Nutation” Astron. J. 108 (1994), 711.
I then typed 2009,03,30 as the start date, and pressed enter to select the default 1 day step size.
SOLEX then displayed a table of the major planets and I checked Mercury's data:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2009-Mar-30 00:00 00 32 15.246 +2 6 48.29 1.34657923 2009-Mar-31 00:00 00 39 29.373 +3 1 48.71 1.34236608
... against NASA's horizons ephemeris:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2009-Mar-30 00:00 00 32 15.57 +02 06 50.7 1.34660450012112 2009-Mar-31 00:00 00 39 29.71 +03 01 51.1 1.34240113491257
I then pressed the "Y" key to run the close approach finder. I pressed "S" to choose Spatial. I typed "1/3" to select approaches between Mercury (1) and Earth (3). I typed 82110 for the closest approach ditance, in units of 1000 km. I typed 3500 for the end-year of the search.
The results showed a lot of approaches (I should have used 82100 as distance instead), but the 2679-06-10 approach was listed as 82.092295 Gm, which date agrees with NASA. Minimum approach distances became closer as the centuries went by.
SOLEX stored the results in the "USERDATA" folder as file "MINDIST.DAT", and this was human-readable.
Here is an edited excerpt.
Conditions of minimum spatial distance #1 #2 Date TT JD2000 Dm (Gm) -1 -3 2679/06/10 17:06:48 248160.21306 82.092295 ... -1 -3 2725/06/11 23:17:17 264962.47034 82.092270 ... -1 -3 2988/06/14 08:51:04 361024.86879 82.081392
How do those figures compare to NASA's horizons?
For the year 2679 Horizons found the closest about 5 minutes later than SOLEX:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2679-Jun-10 17:12 05 14 50.39 +20 28 33.3 .548752997931168
Google tells me .548752997931168 Astronomical Units = 82 092 351 km, or 82.092351 Gm, off by 56 kilometres.
For 2725 Horizons was again about 5 minutes later:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2725-Jun-11 23:23 05 19 43.05 +20 30 20.3 .548752892115657
.548752892115657 Astronomical Units = 82 092 335.2 km, or 82.0923352 Gm, off by 65 km.
For 2988 Horizons was yet again about 5 minutes later:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta
2988-Jun-14 08:56 05 35 11.23 +20 37 04.9 .548680119931325 .548680119931325 Astronomical Units = 82 081 448.6 kilometers, or 82.0814486 Gm, off by 57 km.
Finally Solex found the closest approach from 2009 to 2020 occuring at 2015:
Conditions of minimum spatial distance #1 #2 Date TT JD2000 Dm (Gm) -1 -3 2015/05/31 03:24:45 5628.64219 82.132823
And NASA finds one 5 minutes later:
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A.__(a-apparent)__DEC delta 2015-May-31 03:30 04 29 28.01 +19 34 29.8 .549023850264077
.549023850264077 Astronomical Units = 82 132 870 km, or 82.132870 Gm, off by 47 km.
It seems the difference between SOLEX and NASA, is a mostly constant difference of about 5 minutes and about 50 km.
84user ( talk) 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what values Solex uses for GM? -- Kheider ( talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on the exosphere includes 2 different lists of what it is comprised of. This is both redundant and confusing. Any ideas for how to rewrite this section? Kaldari ( talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"It can only be viewed in morning or evening twilight." This can't be right. If it can be up to 28o from the sun, then for some parts of Earth's surface it can be visible when the sun is 28o below the horizon, and it can be up to 10o above the horizon when the sun is at least 18o below the horizon, at least in the tropics.
69.140.12.180 ( talk) 14:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Nightvid
I removed the reference to the JPL info, because it is not relevant. It covers less than 1 part in 240 of the time span involved, and lists none of the threshold marks or the count of approaches.
The other cite is a problem. It doesn’t actually confirm the actual numbers, and does not go to the past. But the real issue here is that while the graph of the approaches is fine, the other graph is misleading and supports an erroneous position, that the minimum distances are getting smaller because of changes in Mercury’s inclination and eccentricity. The biggest part, by far, of the change is the decrease in the Earth-Sun distance at the time of the closest approaches. I’ll elaborate in another post. And for the inclination, which is on the graph, it is indeed falling relative to a fixed J2000 reference frame. But as Frank said, the Earth’s inclination is changing. This is why the relevant numbers are for the mean ecliptic of date. Mercury’s inclination has been increasing throughout, and will continue to do so for 7,500 years. Saros136 ( talk) 07:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
To reproduce the JPL-Horizons results:
1. Go to
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=1
2. Click change on "Time Span", change to 1950-01-01 and 2160-01-01 and click "Use Specified Times".
3. Click change on "Table Settings", make sure only "10,13,20,23,29" are selected. (#20 is the important one.) Click "Use Selected Settings".
4. Click "Generate Ephemeris" to generate JPL RESULTS. (You will need to wait 2 minutes for it to generate)
5. Use "Ctrl-F" to find the values " .5490" and the value " .5489". The value " .5488" is not listed...
Thus,
my results are reproducible using a reliable source.
-- Kevin Heider
I installed
Solex 10. It looks like a great/useful program, but I am a newbie to it. I used "[J] to Jump to Date" and "[X] to Show Osculating Elements" In the year 3000, Mercury has an inclination=6.95, in 4000 i=6.88, 6000=6.77, 7000=6.71, 10000=6.55, 14000=6.36, and 17000=6.25 (
Solex Screen grab for 17000AD). I fail to see support for your claim that "Mercury’s inclination has been increasing throughout, and will continue to do so for 7,500 years." It looks to me that the
GravSim plot is correct. --
Kheider (
talk)
21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I think for a general article it might be better to use the current J2000 ecliptic as a reference point than to confuse the matter by going into too much detail about how the Earth's orbital plane also changes and the ecliptic in several thousand years will be mildy different. Otherwise you also need to plot (and explain) the change in Earth's inclination and explain that Jupiter is basically influencing everything. The plots were created to simplify the explanation (without being too technical). -- Kheider ( talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
For long-term simulations the Earth's passive and rapidly changing inclination/ecliptic (compared to Jupiter's semi-fixed inclination) may not be the best reference point since the Sun-Jupiter barycenter has a huge influence in the rate-of-change for both eccentricity and inclination. But we are diverging from the main point of this thread. I simply did not like you calling the "for demonstration purposes" inclination/eccentricity chart for Mercury, "flat out wrong", simply because we did not make a plot of the Earth's eccentricity/inclination change or go into detail explaining why changes in Earth's eccentricity could be more significant. And obviously, the ecliptic is Earth-biased by definition.-- Kheider ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture at the beginning of the article shouldn't be a false color one. Maybe put that one in later on, but I think the first photo should be accurate. Knick99 ( talk) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the temperatures given are in Kelvin; since we are not all scientists or engineers could a Celsius and/or Fahrenheit be given too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 ( talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you make "regolith" a link - I had to copy and paste to get there - no trouble but it makes it easier and encorages research. Jay: UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.220.98 ( talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the URLs in what are now references 38 and 103, you will see that they are the same. Therefore at least one of them is obviously wrong. The first one is correct: the URL is for that paper by L.V. Ksanfomality. The correct URL for the other paper, by G. Colombo, is http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v208/n5010/abs/208575a0.html.
I cannot fix this because the article is semi-protected; would someone else please do so? -- 65.95.48.42 ( talk) 07:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It is realy sad if even the original source provides false data !!!
I dont know how the NASA got these wrong numbers ??? but if somebody would correct them.
I am too busy right now.
They following comparison is 100% wrong.
Mercurys surface isnt around .108 that of our planet !!
The surface of about 74 mio km^2 is correct but this is one 74 mio/ 510 mio (earth surface) .1451 earth not .108 ???
Dont know who NASA got this value.
I didnt check the other values but maybe they are wrong as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.137.112 ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes conversion error could be the case, but also the volume is strangely wrong i think. if the radius-ratio is correct one only has to calculate the 3 power of the radius-ratio and one has the volume-ratio. Interessting this value is also wrong about 4,5% ?? I would assume that both mercury and earth are almost perfect spheres so you can simple use this "trick" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.137.89 ( talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In the article "Geology of Mercury" it's written that "the Sun's tides on Mercury are about 17% stronger than the Moon’s on Earth", whereas in this one it's written that "the Sun’s tides on Mercury are about 17 times stronger than the Moon’s on Earth". I don't know which is the right value, and I can't check it. Can anyone do it? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.68.105.226 (
talk)
15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)