This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phobos (moon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Phobos (moon) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 18, 2004, August 18, 2005, August 18, 2010, August 18, 2013, August 18, 2019, and August 18, 2023. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Phobos (moon) ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 12 October 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
(moved to Talk:Timeline of natural satellites)
I'm going to switch the mm/s² back to m/s². Granted, if this were an independent article mm/s² would be preferable, but it is not; it is part of a large series of articles, and sticking to a single unit (m/s²) is necessary for comparison purposes.
Urhixidur 12:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
How can it have surface dust if it's inside its Roche Limit? Wouldn't tidal forces tend to cause the dust to lift from the surface and either dissipate into space, or fall toward Mars? -- Doradus 19:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I may make some significant edits at this point, I think the Phobos page as it stands is in error. Does anyone have any citations (preferably in another peer-reviewed academic journal) which states that Phobos is within its Roche limit? -- Noren 21:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 09:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Tidal forces don't fall to zero at the "middle" - they are attractive there. See Image:Tidal-forces-calculated.png from tidal force.
Yes, we do know it to about 1 ms. See http://exp.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/celestia/data/solarsys.ssc. Remember that you can observe over a great number of revolutions and the divide by that number, so precision grows with time.
Urhixidur 17:12, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
I believe we can time a single revolution to that accuracy. Will subsequent orbits vary by less than 1ms? Surely Mars is not that uniform, perturbation by Jupiter must be on that order of magnitude. Unfortunately I don't know how to calculate either of those effects, so I guess I'll take your word for it. -- Doradus 19:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am having trouble getting the formatting to work on 800x600 resolution. That image in the middle kind of mucks things up. I kept tweeking with it and got it to work for this resolution, but don't know the impact at other resolutions.
is given by 1.07 × 1016 kg (1.8 µEarths).
There seems to be a misscalculation here. I'm getting 50.58 nano Earths.
Could someone please check this and either correct the article or my calculation? Thanks 84.160.196.73 09:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In a related change, the volume in Earths was also mistakenly expressed in microearths rather than nanoearths. (As something of a sanity check, I expected comparative volume and mass to be of the same order of magnitude, and they previously were not.) - Noren 00:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I had added the alternate pronunciation fob'-us, but it's pretty rare, so I'm taking it out. It's given as an alternate pronunciation in Gayley's Classic Myths in English Literature and in Art. In the OED, not even the much more common cognate "phobic" has a variant with that vowel. Put it back if you like... -- kwami 07:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"As seen from Phobos, Mars would be 6400 times larger and 2500 times brighter than the full Moon as seen from Earth" it isn't supposed to be as seen from Mars, Phobos...?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Phobos (moon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Phobos (moon) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 18, 2004, August 18, 2005, August 18, 2010, August 18, 2013, August 18, 2019, and August 18, 2023. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Phobos (moon) ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 12 October 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
(moved to Talk:Timeline of natural satellites)
I'm going to switch the mm/s² back to m/s². Granted, if this were an independent article mm/s² would be preferable, but it is not; it is part of a large series of articles, and sticking to a single unit (m/s²) is necessary for comparison purposes.
Urhixidur 12:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
How can it have surface dust if it's inside its Roche Limit? Wouldn't tidal forces tend to cause the dust to lift from the surface and either dissipate into space, or fall toward Mars? -- Doradus 19:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I may make some significant edits at this point, I think the Phobos page as it stands is in error. Does anyone have any citations (preferably in another peer-reviewed academic journal) which states that Phobos is within its Roche limit? -- Noren 21:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 09:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Tidal forces don't fall to zero at the "middle" - they are attractive there. See Image:Tidal-forces-calculated.png from tidal force.
Yes, we do know it to about 1 ms. See http://exp.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/celestia/data/solarsys.ssc. Remember that you can observe over a great number of revolutions and the divide by that number, so precision grows with time.
Urhixidur 17:12, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
I believe we can time a single revolution to that accuracy. Will subsequent orbits vary by less than 1ms? Surely Mars is not that uniform, perturbation by Jupiter must be on that order of magnitude. Unfortunately I don't know how to calculate either of those effects, so I guess I'll take your word for it. -- Doradus 19:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am having trouble getting the formatting to work on 800x600 resolution. That image in the middle kind of mucks things up. I kept tweeking with it and got it to work for this resolution, but don't know the impact at other resolutions.
is given by 1.07 × 1016 kg (1.8 µEarths).
There seems to be a misscalculation here. I'm getting 50.58 nano Earths.
Could someone please check this and either correct the article or my calculation? Thanks 84.160.196.73 09:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In a related change, the volume in Earths was also mistakenly expressed in microearths rather than nanoearths. (As something of a sanity check, I expected comparative volume and mass to be of the same order of magnitude, and they previously were not.) - Noren 00:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I had added the alternate pronunciation fob'-us, but it's pretty rare, so I'm taking it out. It's given as an alternate pronunciation in Gayley's Classic Myths in English Literature and in Art. In the OED, not even the much more common cognate "phobic" has a variant with that vowel. Put it back if you like... -- kwami 07:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"As seen from Phobos, Mars would be 6400 times larger and 2500 times brighter than the full Moon as seen from Earth" it isn't supposed to be as seen from Mars, Phobos...?