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 |
The following sentences were removed from the end of the Boundary section because they lack references:
It may be true, but it still needs proper citations. (Plus it is wandering off topic a bit.) The Armstrong line article has the same issue with unsourced content. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that the image at the right be adopted for the lead image. It contains the same information, but it more readily fits the browser view and the altitudes are closer to their actual scale. Praemonitus ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Gotta go thumbs down on this image, its unreadable at thumb of 300px across and the maker notes its not very usable below a native resolution (430×700px). This image and the previous one have the same problem, its about the layers of the atmosphere and this is not the Atmosphere of Earth article. It also does not obviously show the only relevant information it could tell the reader --> where does "Outer space" begin? That could all be fixed with scaling/rewriting of the text in the image but there is a third problem: both images add to the WP:CHIMERA nature of this article. They depict the artificial boundary layer that is the treaty/technical designation of "Outer space" whereas most of this article describes "Space", two different topics and one is literally way bigger than the other. The major topic of the article should be depicted by the lead image, not the minor one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I will remove some unhelpful links to everyday words. According to WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking "..., the following are not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context;" - Fartherred ( talk) 03:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that a button be implemented that can turn links on and off, that way, if a user needs to access a link, it is quick and easy, while also providing the reader with minimal clutter on their screen. ShifterFister ( talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In the page you can see that there are no links to other languages. When I check the other langage wiki page , for example Uzay in Turkish wiki, I can see the link to this page in English wiki. I tried to add it by giving the other wiki's link info, It says target page is already linked. Problem persists that this page does not show the links to other languages. -- Guyver ( talk) 14:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Praemonitus changed "Data indicate" to "Data indicates" and wrote in the edit summary that this normal U.S. usage. What is the reference for normal U.S. usage? - Fartherred ( talk) 13:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody know what this means?
Praemonitus ( talk) 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the Environment section should cover gravity and magnetic fields in space? What do you think? Praemonitus ( talk) 16:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a conflict between the information on this page, in the section on the Interstellar Medium, and on the wikipedia 'Interstellar Medium" page on the density of the interstellar medium. On this page, the interstellar medium (ISM) density is described as: "The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 10^6 particles per m^3, but cold molecular clouds can hold 10^8–10^12 per m^3." Yet the wikipedia 'Interstellar medium' page says "In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm^3 (1 million molecules per cm^3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10^−4 ions per cm^3."
There are a million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter. Taking an average of '10^8 to 10^12' to be 10^10, the interstellar medium section of this page is saying there are 10^10 particles per m^3 in a cold molecular cloud, which is the same as 10^4 particles per cm^3 in a cold molecular cloud. The interstellar medium page is saying 10^6 molecules per cm^3 'in cool dense regions'. Presumably 'cool dense regions' of the ISM is the same thing as 'the cold molecular cloud' but the numbers are off by 2 orders of magnitude: one page is saying a 1000 molecules in a cubic centimeter, the other one is saying a million.
I don't know if some one divided wrong going from cubic meters to cubic centimeters or if the various authors are referring to different authorities. DlronW ( talk) 03:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying there is a conflict between this article "Outer Space" and the Wikipedia article entitled "Interstellar Medium". The Wikipedia article "Interstellar Medium" says that the density of 'cool, dense regions of the ISM' is 10^6 per cm^3. This Wikipedia "Outer Space" article says that the density of 'cold molecular clouds' in Interstellar Space is 10^8–10^12 per m^3 (in its section on "Interstellar Space"). I have no idea which one is right, but obviously they can't both be right: the numbers are off by 2 orders of magnitude: one page is saying a 1000 molecules in a cubic centimeter, the other one is saying a million. Either one is kind of cool to think about in terms of just how far from a vacuum those regions might be -- if I'd had to of guessed, I'd have guessed more like the 1 particle per cubic centimeter quoted from your reference.
But, I don't think your reference to the density of hydrogen near the sun is applicable. That's not 'interstellar', that's inside the solar system, 'interplanetary'. The interstellar medium is out between stars. I'm no expert, but, I don't think the density of the region inside the solar system is necessary similar to the density of interstellar space.
DlronW ( talk) 17:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
There's redundancy between the final paragraph of the "Earth orbit" section and the "Cislunar space" section. The two should be consolidated. Praemonitus ( talk) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest outer space editors. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The article is also being considered for demotion from "good article" status: [2]. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I recently attempted to edit outer space's main page; I changed "void" to "expanse" because space is not a void, and whoever calls space a void is 100% wrong. Having space as a void implies there is nothing, which is far from the truth. Earth humans lack a general understanding of what space actually is due to lack of experience, but it is essentially an expanse where energy can freely travel/exist. I request my edit be put back into effect, which is substitution of the word "void" for "expanse" at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen 88923028193 AC ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I propose to move the following chapters into the following order, starting with the unchanged chapter "Environment": "Regions" "Earth orbit" "Boundary" "Legal status" ...next as before Nsae Comp ( talk) 21:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the section on human health should be moved down, possibly after the exploration section. Attic Salt ( talk) 01:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Outer space has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add after "The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270.45 °C; −454.81 °F).[1]" There is no evidence to support state before or cause of the bang. How is order a result of what should be disorder? Sufficient evidence has been presented in support of creation from nothing ( ex-nihilo). Ross, H. (2014). Atheist Scientist Becomes Christian After Researching Evidence for God. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs God Is the Best Explanation for the Origin of the Universe. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwRR5WTgpp8 222.233.26.203 ( talk) 14:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
May be too trivial and/or connected to marketing, but there is a NASA connection: " Astronauts describe the smell as a mix of gunpowder, seared steak, raspberries and rum." Mapsax ( talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
118.211.160.190 for helping to improve this article. I believe the content that you wanted to add is already covered in the last sentence of the lead: Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space.
0x
Deadbeef
12:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The "Boundary" section lists that the United States recognizes anyone who has traveled above an altitude of 50 miles as an astronaut. In light of the FAA first changing these requirements, then abolishing the commercial astronaut space wings program, should this be removed and/or edited? Relevant sources: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8800.2.pdf https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-ends-commercial-space-astronaut-wings-program-will-recognize-individuals-reaching 2604:2A40:1CA2:0:E0EF:4196:68F:8170 ( talk) 04:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This paragraph was recently added:
However, the citation is incomplete and the evidence I checked indicates the statement is inaccurate. xGEO space is just military jargon for CISLunar space beyond geosynchronous orbit, so it's almost a synonym. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Praemonitus: My addition of light seconds to the para about Deep Space was recently taken out and I wanted to counter that my addition was definately not original research, per WP:CALC.
Furthermore I firmly disagree that light seconds are not relateable. Kilometer have at these scales no more real life relateability, light seconds on the other hand do and are also more significant since it is the measure that observation and telecommunication needs to consider when handling such regions/distances of space. Nsae Comp ( talk) 19:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I mainly wanted to say that it wasnt original research. Beside that I just wanted to endorse the use of light seconds. But I dont want to drag this on. If lunar distance as an illustration of the distance is enough then thats ok with me. PS: lunar distance is a distance unit, with 1.3 light seconds, anyway ;). Nsae Comp ( talk) 07:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Some material in the Outer_space#Interstellar_space section seems to duplicate, or would be more appropriate in, the article on the interstellar medium. The two articles do likely have different readership; the bits with more astronomical detail seem like candidates for that other article. ( sdsds - talk) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The article notably lacks a link to exosphere. Is there a logical place to incorporate one? ( sdsds - talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The article currently has a section titled 'Regions near the Earth' and the first sentence in that section begins with, 'Near-Earth space is the region of space extending from low Earth orbits out to geostationary orbits.' This might confuse readers because the section isn't solely about 'Near-Earth space' by this definition. We might want to change the section title to 'Regions in the vicinity of Earth' and explicitly cover every region of interest out to the sphere of influence, and in particular cover Sun-Earth Lagrange points, although this might slightly conflict with the following section on 'Interplanetary space.'
Feedback welcome. ( — 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:02, 6 March 2024 (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 |
The following sentences were removed from the end of the Boundary section because they lack references:
It may be true, but it still needs proper citations. (Plus it is wandering off topic a bit.) The Armstrong line article has the same issue with unsourced content. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that the image at the right be adopted for the lead image. It contains the same information, but it more readily fits the browser view and the altitudes are closer to their actual scale. Praemonitus ( talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Gotta go thumbs down on this image, its unreadable at thumb of 300px across and the maker notes its not very usable below a native resolution (430×700px). This image and the previous one have the same problem, its about the layers of the atmosphere and this is not the Atmosphere of Earth article. It also does not obviously show the only relevant information it could tell the reader --> where does "Outer space" begin? That could all be fixed with scaling/rewriting of the text in the image but there is a third problem: both images add to the WP:CHIMERA nature of this article. They depict the artificial boundary layer that is the treaty/technical designation of "Outer space" whereas most of this article describes "Space", two different topics and one is literally way bigger than the other. The major topic of the article should be depicted by the lead image, not the minor one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 15:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I will remove some unhelpful links to everyday words. According to WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking "..., the following are not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context;" - Fartherred ( talk) 03:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that a button be implemented that can turn links on and off, that way, if a user needs to access a link, it is quick and easy, while also providing the reader with minimal clutter on their screen. ShifterFister ( talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In the page you can see that there are no links to other languages. When I check the other langage wiki page , for example Uzay in Turkish wiki, I can see the link to this page in English wiki. I tried to add it by giving the other wiki's link info, It says target page is already linked. Problem persists that this page does not show the links to other languages. -- Guyver ( talk) 14:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Praemonitus changed "Data indicate" to "Data indicates" and wrote in the edit summary that this normal U.S. usage. What is the reference for normal U.S. usage? - Fartherred ( talk) 13:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anybody know what this means?
Praemonitus ( talk) 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the Environment section should cover gravity and magnetic fields in space? What do you think? Praemonitus ( talk) 16:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a conflict between the information on this page, in the section on the Interstellar Medium, and on the wikipedia 'Interstellar Medium" page on the density of the interstellar medium. On this page, the interstellar medium (ISM) density is described as: "The density of matter in the interstellar medium can vary considerably: the average is around 10^6 particles per m^3, but cold molecular clouds can hold 10^8–10^12 per m^3." Yet the wikipedia 'Interstellar medium' page says "In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm^3 (1 million molecules per cm^3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10^−4 ions per cm^3."
There are a million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter. Taking an average of '10^8 to 10^12' to be 10^10, the interstellar medium section of this page is saying there are 10^10 particles per m^3 in a cold molecular cloud, which is the same as 10^4 particles per cm^3 in a cold molecular cloud. The interstellar medium page is saying 10^6 molecules per cm^3 'in cool dense regions'. Presumably 'cool dense regions' of the ISM is the same thing as 'the cold molecular cloud' but the numbers are off by 2 orders of magnitude: one page is saying a 1000 molecules in a cubic centimeter, the other one is saying a million.
I don't know if some one divided wrong going from cubic meters to cubic centimeters or if the various authors are referring to different authorities. DlronW ( talk) 03:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying there is a conflict between this article "Outer Space" and the Wikipedia article entitled "Interstellar Medium". The Wikipedia article "Interstellar Medium" says that the density of 'cool, dense regions of the ISM' is 10^6 per cm^3. This Wikipedia "Outer Space" article says that the density of 'cold molecular clouds' in Interstellar Space is 10^8–10^12 per m^3 (in its section on "Interstellar Space"). I have no idea which one is right, but obviously they can't both be right: the numbers are off by 2 orders of magnitude: one page is saying a 1000 molecules in a cubic centimeter, the other one is saying a million. Either one is kind of cool to think about in terms of just how far from a vacuum those regions might be -- if I'd had to of guessed, I'd have guessed more like the 1 particle per cubic centimeter quoted from your reference.
But, I don't think your reference to the density of hydrogen near the sun is applicable. That's not 'interstellar', that's inside the solar system, 'interplanetary'. The interstellar medium is out between stars. I'm no expert, but, I don't think the density of the region inside the solar system is necessary similar to the density of interstellar space.
DlronW ( talk) 17:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
There's redundancy between the final paragraph of the "Earth orbit" section and the "Cislunar space" section. The two should be consolidated. Praemonitus ( talk) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the lede of Rfc Plasma (physics) that might interest outer space editors. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The article is also being considered for demotion from "good article" status: [2]. Please consider weighing in. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I recently attempted to edit outer space's main page; I changed "void" to "expanse" because space is not a void, and whoever calls space a void is 100% wrong. Having space as a void implies there is nothing, which is far from the truth. Earth humans lack a general understanding of what space actually is due to lack of experience, but it is essentially an expanse where energy can freely travel/exist. I request my edit be put back into effect, which is substitution of the word "void" for "expanse" at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen 88923028193 AC ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I propose to move the following chapters into the following order, starting with the unchanged chapter "Environment": "Regions" "Earth orbit" "Boundary" "Legal status" ...next as before Nsae Comp ( talk) 21:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the section on human health should be moved down, possibly after the exploration section. Attic Salt ( talk) 01:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Outer space has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add after "The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270.45 °C; −454.81 °F).[1]" There is no evidence to support state before or cause of the bang. How is order a result of what should be disorder? Sufficient evidence has been presented in support of creation from nothing ( ex-nihilo). Ross, H. (2014). Atheist Scientist Becomes Christian After Researching Evidence for God. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs God Is the Best Explanation for the Origin of the Universe. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwRR5WTgpp8 222.233.26.203 ( talk) 14:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
May be too trivial and/or connected to marketing, but there is a NASA connection: " Astronauts describe the smell as a mix of gunpowder, seared steak, raspberries and rum." Mapsax ( talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
118.211.160.190 for helping to improve this article. I believe the content that you wanted to add is already covered in the last sentence of the lead: Intergalactic space takes up most of the volume of the universe, but even galaxies and star systems consist almost entirely of empty space.
0x
Deadbeef
12:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The "Boundary" section lists that the United States recognizes anyone who has traveled above an altitude of 50 miles as an astronaut. In light of the FAA first changing these requirements, then abolishing the commercial astronaut space wings program, should this be removed and/or edited? Relevant sources: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8800.2.pdf https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-ends-commercial-space-astronaut-wings-program-will-recognize-individuals-reaching 2604:2A40:1CA2:0:E0EF:4196:68F:8170 ( talk) 04:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This paragraph was recently added:
However, the citation is incomplete and the evidence I checked indicates the statement is inaccurate. xGEO space is just military jargon for CISLunar space beyond geosynchronous orbit, so it's almost a synonym. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Praemonitus: My addition of light seconds to the para about Deep Space was recently taken out and I wanted to counter that my addition was definately not original research, per WP:CALC.
Furthermore I firmly disagree that light seconds are not relateable. Kilometer have at these scales no more real life relateability, light seconds on the other hand do and are also more significant since it is the measure that observation and telecommunication needs to consider when handling such regions/distances of space. Nsae Comp ( talk) 19:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I mainly wanted to say that it wasnt original research. Beside that I just wanted to endorse the use of light seconds. But I dont want to drag this on. If lunar distance as an illustration of the distance is enough then thats ok with me. PS: lunar distance is a distance unit, with 1.3 light seconds, anyway ;). Nsae Comp ( talk) 07:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Some material in the Outer_space#Interstellar_space section seems to duplicate, or would be more appropriate in, the article on the interstellar medium. The two articles do likely have different readership; the bits with more astronomical detail seem like candidates for that other article. ( sdsds - talk) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The article notably lacks a link to exosphere. Is there a logical place to incorporate one? ( sdsds - talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The article currently has a section titled 'Regions near the Earth' and the first sentence in that section begins with, 'Near-Earth space is the region of space extending from low Earth orbits out to geostationary orbits.' This might confuse readers because the section isn't solely about 'Near-Earth space' by this definition. We might want to change the section title to 'Regions in the vicinity of Earth' and explicitly cover every region of interest out to the sphere of influence, and in particular cover Sun-Earth Lagrange points, although this might slightly conflict with the following section on 'Interplanetary space.'
Feedback welcome. ( — 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)