![]() | 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 |
I was looking at this website and I realized that the table on the side of this page is a little hard to read. If somebody could please change the format of this, seeing as I don't know how, I, along with many others I'm sure, would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much
That "Pre-discovery" section is bereft of any references and hard facts. "It is said that he saw them in a dream"? Who said that? When? What was the source? What does "some accuracy" mean? All I see is a subjective narative that doesnt deserve to be featured so prominently in this article. I am removing it with the expectation that if someone wants to include it, they actually find some content to go with it as well. Asteron ノレツァ 18:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
In the list of features page (separate) there are these craters:
Clustril Character in Gulliver's Travels D'Arrest Heinrich Louis d'Arrest Drunlo Character in Gulliver's Travels Flimnap Character in Gulliver's Travels Gulliver Main character of Gulliver's Travels Hall Asaph Hall Limtoc Character in Gulliver's Travels Reldresal Character in Gulliver's Travels Roche Édouard Roche Sharpless Bevan Sharpless Skyresh Character in Gulliver's Travels Stickney Angeline Stickney Todd David Peck Todd Wendell Oliver Wendell
could we get some kind of map or labelled picture to show where they are? GB 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a clear statement, or number that tells me if Phobos (or Deimos for that matter) appears larger from the surface of mars than our moon appears from the surface of earth. Considering how close Phobos is, I initially believed it to be larger, but because of its small size, I may be smaller. If we could get some sort of photograph of it in the sky, that would be great. The current one of Phobos passing by the sun doesn't give you a good idea of what it looks like to a person on mars.-- Ikiroid 17:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The first ever time I recall hearing about the moons of Mars, and specifically Phobos, I was told the story of how Phobos generated the names "The Hurtling moons of Barsoom" by Edgar Rice Burroughs. To this day I still think of Phobos in this way. Does anybody feel this is notable for the page on Phobos?
"In 1912 Edgar Rice Burroughs published a story entitled "Under the Moons of Mars" (printed in book form in 1917 as 'A Princess of Mars') in which he referred to the "hurtling moons of Barsoom" (Barsoom being the "native" word for Mars in the fictional account). Burroughs was inspired by the fact that Phobos, having an orbital period of slightly less than 8 hours, would appear from Mars to rise in the west and set in the east only five and a half hours later. " http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1300.html
Or perhaps under Phobos and Deimos in fiction...
Beeawwb 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. Here are my comments.
I'm going to fail this nomination primarily because of the original research and the passive voice, but I think these could be corrected after which the article should be renominated. -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
210% and 450% of what? Is the maximum (1+4.5) × the minimum, or is the minimum (1-4.5) × the maximum, or is the range (1±2.25) × the mean? Two of these are of course absurd, but with no reference stated they're all logically valid. I'd prefer the form local gravity varies by a factor of x.y, not only because of that ambiguity but because the known numbers don't appear to justify using three digits (one reason I dislike percentage expressions in general). — Tamfang ( talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
At the recent Phobos Deimos conference, Steven Dick (the NASA historian), surprised many of us by telling us that Phobos means flight and Deimos means fear. I found this reference backing him up, but are there any greek experts to confirm this? We should change this in the article if this is true. http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphology/GEO_10/GEO_PLATE_P-9.shtml Jespley 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. It states that Phobos also means "flight" (in addition to fear?) and that Deimos means fear (Panic is a sudden fear). But I know nothing about nomenclature. -- Kheider 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Today an anonymous editor added a quote by Buzz Aldrin about there being a "monolith" on Phobos, with a Youtube link to prove it. I found out what he is referring to — it's an object at about 15°N, 14°W, a few km east of Stickney. It is big enough to be seen in our infobox photo at full resolution. You can see it more easily here in this Global Surveyor photo, a bit left of center. I found out that a Canadian team is considering landing a spacecraft near there so I thought that might be a good way to add context to the quote, rather than linking to some of the speculative amateur sites that are out there. -- Cam ( talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Russian Phobos missions, it says --
What are "documented" data, much less "unusual" data...? -- Syzygy ( talk) 11:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The animation of these two moons' orbits (also present in the Deimos article) appears to show Phobos orbiting exactly 4 times for every orbit of Deimos. The figures listed for their respective Orbital periods, however, show a slight discrepancy:
Phobos - 0.31891023d x 4 = 1.27564092d Deimos - 1.26244d difference - 0.01320d, or about 19 minutes.
The orbits are therefore not in exact 4:1 resonance. Doubtless it would be difficult to make the animation more accurate, but perhaps a note should be added lest anyone draw this erroneous conclusion. Perhaps also the main text should mention that the two are not quite in resonance, and whether or not (if this be known) they are tending that way. I will attempt to find out if this question has been addressed, and if successful will return to post further information here. 87.81.230.195 ( talk) 06:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A lander bound for Mars would need to be capable of atmospheric entry and subsequent in-situ return to orbit without any support facilities (a capacity which has never been attempted in a manned spacecraft of human design) ...
Isn't that a somewhat unnecessary qualifier? Or have we attempted such feats in spacecraft of non-human design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.128.201 ( talk) 15:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm doubtful about this recent change:
The ratio of rotation to revolution is the same for Phobos as for Earth's Moon, which is receding with tidal effects! — Tamfang ( talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite so. Now: what has any of this to do with "Phobos's low rotational rate"? — Tamfang ( talk) 07:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Everybody's right here. But it should be made clear that although Phobos is fully tide-locked, it is exerting a miniscule tidal locking effect on Mars, increasing Mars' rate of rotation infinitesimally and losing orbital velocity in return. We're all in agreement, but looking at it in different ways. I think it'd be good to explain more clearly in the article. And yes, Tamfang, the part about Phobos' rotational rate vs. its orbital rate (which are equal!) seems to have already gone away. Steve Hyland ( talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: I've (hopefully) clarified the article; further refinement is welcomed. Steve Hyland ( talk) 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states that "Recent images from Mars Global Surveyor indicate that Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is believed to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity." Could electrostatic charges have anything to do with this? I'm reminded of electrostatic accretion every time I think about regolith on the surface of an object too small to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Anyone know where you might find info about this (one way or the other)? Sakkura ( talk) 00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we note that Phobos is clearly not a moon in the sense that Luna, Umbriel, etc. are? I mean, it's traditionally been called a moon, but it's incredibly small (its mass is equivalent to 1.8 billionth Earths) and, more importantly, it isn't even spherical and is probably an asteroid, or possibly a chunk of Mars ejected from a collision with a planetoid.
Iron has a density of 7.874. Phobos has a density of 1.876. To be made of iron and have a size and density of Phobos, an object would merely need to have a hollow volume within the shell equal to 76.175% of the whole. Observations of Phobos are inconsistent with a hollow iron shell, but not merely because of observed density. The statement in the article does not claim mere inconsistency between the density and a hollow iron shell theory, but inconsistency with a hollow shell in general. The vary next paragraph refers to the possibility of Phobos being hollow. So it seems to me the claim of inconsistency between the density of Phobos and the hollow shell theory should be removed. -- Fartherred ( talk) 03:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The gravity of Phobos is small so the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters of the Mars Transfer Vehicle could be used to power the take off.
For a spacecraft massing 200 tonne including propellant with a Phobos thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 : 1 . (Ratio used by Earth LV.)
F = m a = 200,000 kg * 0.0084 m/s2 * 1.2 = 2016 N (or 453 lbf)
Larger thrusters will have a shorter burn time, particularly during landing.
Andrew Swallow (
talk)
20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Dave Alama just got it wrong in edits of the 16th of August. Stickney (crater) is the big one on the right edge of image. Will fix. Fartherred ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that if anyone has any sourced info, including published speculations, on that issue, to go ahead and insert it. I reverted what I felt was an unsourced WP:OR. If we end up with multiple sourced explanations, we may possibly need to present all of them. Thanks, Crum375 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section to the "Literature" section noting Swift's mention of two moons of Mars in Gulliver's visit to Laputa. The naming of features after characters from Gulliver is clearly a reference to this association. There is no evidence whatsoever that Swift had any knowledge of Phobos and Deimos, but it is a sufficiently striking literary parallel that it was taken into account by the IAU -- APRCooper ( talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it not appropriate to state that Jonathan Swift wrote about the two hurtling moons of Mars in Gulliver's Travels in 1726, in Part 3, Chapter 3 (the "Voyage to Laputa") more than a 150 years before Hall found them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.52.80 ( talk) 05:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Fact checking is crucial, guys. This U.S. Naval Observatory page has a detailed account of the discovery of Phobos and Deimos: http://www.usno.navy.mil/hallmedal.html
Within we can read that "[...] I found a faint object on the following side and a little north of the planet. [...] This was at half past two o'clock on the night of the 11th." (discovery of Deimos on August 12). And later: "On August 17th while waiting and watching for the outer moon, the inner one was discovered." (discovery of Phobos on August 17, possibly 18).
Urhixidur 12:32, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
With a mean radius of 11.1 kms, and surface area of a sphere = 4π*r^2, shouldn't the surface area be something in the realm of 1548.3 km^2? Even if Phobos wasn't rounded at all, dimensions of 26.8 km by 22.4 km by 18.4 should put an upper limit of its surface area at ((26.8*22.4*2)+(26.8*18.4*2)+(22.4*18.4*2)) = 3011.2 kms^2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.177.84.122 ( talk) 02:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
JorisvS ( talk) 09:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FWIW - added a newly created {{ PhobosCraterNames}} imagemap template (and related Image:USGS-Phobos-MarsMoon-Map.png) to the article - tried to label the crater and region locations as best as possible at the moment - (labels can be hyperlinked to relevant articles, like the label for Stickney (crater)) - some locations are "best-guesses" and are noted with a question mark (?) for now - the Phobos usgs pdf map seemed helpful - any further help with this template project would be welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 01:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Patrick Moore states in one of his standard text books that when he asked Shklovsky about the hollow Phobos claim, Shklovsky claimed that it had originally been intended to be a hoax. It seems that like all good hoaxes, this hoax had taken on a life of its own. AT Kunene ( talk) 08:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The bit about
Fred Singer supporting the idea of Phobos being a hollow artificial structure does not appear to be legitimate. Singer supposedly made some comments in a journal called Astronautics, but, this journal does not appear to exist, and the given ref doesn’t actually link to anything. The possibility that Singer ever supported Shklovsky is rather dubious. This stuff was removed from Singer’s BOLP, and should be removed from this article as well. Any objections?--
CurtisSwain (
talk)
07:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question: He said that it is undeniable that phobos is an artificial structure with the measurements that existed to this point. So if it really is artificial, and makes an effort to look like a moon, doesn't it make sense for the "controlroom" of phobos to adjust the orbit, so it stays undetected? Or am i wrong? Not trying to pitch a conspiracy, just honest interest if anybody considered this. I guess the only way we can prove it to be artificial is to send a probe to dig through the 100m of regolit dust... but the russian spacecraft didn't make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.111.111 ( talk) 06:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Phobos infobox says that Phobos is inclined 1.093° (to Mars's equator) and 26.04° (to the ecliptic). Mars infobox says its inclined 1.850° to ecliptic. I don't understand how the 26.04 ecliptic inclination is derived. Please correct or cite source. Twang ( talk) 16:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[4] : After 20-40 million years all but some stronger chunks will break up and disperse into a planetary ring. Zero talk 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In the exploration history, Mariner 9's observations are not mentioned. -anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.233.255.212 ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The side bar and the article list two different orbital heights. The side bar says about 9000km and the opening paragraph says about 6000km. 198.84.193.145 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Phobos (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cpa.polyu.edu.hk/cpa/polyu/index.php?search=&press_section=&press_category=All&press_date=&mode=pressrelease&Itemid=223&option=com_content&page=1&order=desc&orderby=news_date&press_id=1672When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
These are contradictory because 1.8 cm/yr = 1.8 m/century, not 20 m/century. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I see the problem with contradicting numbers of orbital radius decrease over the years and estimated crash or break-up. 6000m/2m/100year= 300000years. Obviously, lower orbit would mean higher drag so the number should be even lower(excluding that 1.8m vs 2m difference). And there [6] is this claim that 30 to 50 million years are required for the Phobos to reach that altitude before crash/break-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.211.7 ( talk) 20:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I have removed 2 'citation needed' tags relating to the apparent size of Phobos seen from Mars that I considered supererogatory. The relevant numbers are easily calculated from the characteristics cited—in fact I had calculated them myself with pencil & paper before reading the article. We don't require a cite for 2+2=4 or pi=3.14159, this is only marginally more complex. -- D Anthony Patriarche ( talk) 08:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to provide maximum and minimum orbital speeds in addition to just the average?
Phobos's orbit is very nearly circular so I don't think there'd be much of a point to that -
SnailsAttack (
talk)
11:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The article states that a human who weighs 68kg/150lbs on Earth would weigh 60g/2oz on Phobos. But the surface gravity is quoted as 581.4µg = 0.0005814g. Multiplying that by the Earth weight gets you a Phobos weight of 39.5g/1.40oz. Am I missing something, or is one of the quoted figures wrong? Sakkura ( talk) 14:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know if the moon Phobos rotating around Mars is hollow. 2607:FEA8:A240:70A0:DDD6:73E3:4F72:4149 ( talk) 09:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The first episode of Doom (1993 video game), called 'Knee-Deep in the Dead', plays on Phobos, just as the second episode 'the shores of hell' plays on Deimos . There isn't a 'in popular culture' section, so I didn't know where to add it. Cheers! -- 95.88.94.95 ( talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
We need a bit more than just that to create such a section. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (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 |
I was looking at this website and I realized that the table on the side of this page is a little hard to read. If somebody could please change the format of this, seeing as I don't know how, I, along with many others I'm sure, would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much
That "Pre-discovery" section is bereft of any references and hard facts. "It is said that he saw them in a dream"? Who said that? When? What was the source? What does "some accuracy" mean? All I see is a subjective narative that doesnt deserve to be featured so prominently in this article. I am removing it with the expectation that if someone wants to include it, they actually find some content to go with it as well. Asteron ノレツァ 18:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
In the list of features page (separate) there are these craters:
Clustril Character in Gulliver's Travels D'Arrest Heinrich Louis d'Arrest Drunlo Character in Gulliver's Travels Flimnap Character in Gulliver's Travels Gulliver Main character of Gulliver's Travels Hall Asaph Hall Limtoc Character in Gulliver's Travels Reldresal Character in Gulliver's Travels Roche Édouard Roche Sharpless Bevan Sharpless Skyresh Character in Gulliver's Travels Stickney Angeline Stickney Todd David Peck Todd Wendell Oliver Wendell
could we get some kind of map or labelled picture to show where they are? GB 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a clear statement, or number that tells me if Phobos (or Deimos for that matter) appears larger from the surface of mars than our moon appears from the surface of earth. Considering how close Phobos is, I initially believed it to be larger, but because of its small size, I may be smaller. If we could get some sort of photograph of it in the sky, that would be great. The current one of Phobos passing by the sun doesn't give you a good idea of what it looks like to a person on mars.-- Ikiroid 17:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The first ever time I recall hearing about the moons of Mars, and specifically Phobos, I was told the story of how Phobos generated the names "The Hurtling moons of Barsoom" by Edgar Rice Burroughs. To this day I still think of Phobos in this way. Does anybody feel this is notable for the page on Phobos?
"In 1912 Edgar Rice Burroughs published a story entitled "Under the Moons of Mars" (printed in book form in 1917 as 'A Princess of Mars') in which he referred to the "hurtling moons of Barsoom" (Barsoom being the "native" word for Mars in the fictional account). Burroughs was inspired by the fact that Phobos, having an orbital period of slightly less than 8 hours, would appear from Mars to rise in the west and set in the east only five and a half hours later. " http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1300.html
Or perhaps under Phobos and Deimos in fiction...
Beeawwb 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. Here are my comments.
I'm going to fail this nomination primarily because of the original research and the passive voice, but I think these could be corrected after which the article should be renominated. -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
210% and 450% of what? Is the maximum (1+4.5) × the minimum, or is the minimum (1-4.5) × the maximum, or is the range (1±2.25) × the mean? Two of these are of course absurd, but with no reference stated they're all logically valid. I'd prefer the form local gravity varies by a factor of x.y, not only because of that ambiguity but because the known numbers don't appear to justify using three digits (one reason I dislike percentage expressions in general). — Tamfang ( talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
At the recent Phobos Deimos conference, Steven Dick (the NASA historian), surprised many of us by telling us that Phobos means flight and Deimos means fear. I found this reference backing him up, but are there any greek experts to confirm this? We should change this in the article if this is true. http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphology/GEO_10/GEO_PLATE_P-9.shtml Jespley 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature. It states that Phobos also means "flight" (in addition to fear?) and that Deimos means fear (Panic is a sudden fear). But I know nothing about nomenclature. -- Kheider 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Today an anonymous editor added a quote by Buzz Aldrin about there being a "monolith" on Phobos, with a Youtube link to prove it. I found out what he is referring to — it's an object at about 15°N, 14°W, a few km east of Stickney. It is big enough to be seen in our infobox photo at full resolution. You can see it more easily here in this Global Surveyor photo, a bit left of center. I found out that a Canadian team is considering landing a spacecraft near there so I thought that might be a good way to add context to the quote, rather than linking to some of the speculative amateur sites that are out there. -- Cam ( talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Russian Phobos missions, it says --
What are "documented" data, much less "unusual" data...? -- Syzygy ( talk) 11:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The animation of these two moons' orbits (also present in the Deimos article) appears to show Phobos orbiting exactly 4 times for every orbit of Deimos. The figures listed for their respective Orbital periods, however, show a slight discrepancy:
Phobos - 0.31891023d x 4 = 1.27564092d Deimos - 1.26244d difference - 0.01320d, or about 19 minutes.
The orbits are therefore not in exact 4:1 resonance. Doubtless it would be difficult to make the animation more accurate, but perhaps a note should be added lest anyone draw this erroneous conclusion. Perhaps also the main text should mention that the two are not quite in resonance, and whether or not (if this be known) they are tending that way. I will attempt to find out if this question has been addressed, and if successful will return to post further information here. 87.81.230.195 ( talk) 06:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
A lander bound for Mars would need to be capable of atmospheric entry and subsequent in-situ return to orbit without any support facilities (a capacity which has never been attempted in a manned spacecraft of human design) ...
Isn't that a somewhat unnecessary qualifier? Or have we attempted such feats in spacecraft of non-human design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.128.201 ( talk) 15:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm doubtful about this recent change:
The ratio of rotation to revolution is the same for Phobos as for Earth's Moon, which is receding with tidal effects! — Tamfang ( talk) 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite so. Now: what has any of this to do with "Phobos's low rotational rate"? — Tamfang ( talk) 07:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Everybody's right here. But it should be made clear that although Phobos is fully tide-locked, it is exerting a miniscule tidal locking effect on Mars, increasing Mars' rate of rotation infinitesimally and losing orbital velocity in return. We're all in agreement, but looking at it in different ways. I think it'd be good to explain more clearly in the article. And yes, Tamfang, the part about Phobos' rotational rate vs. its orbital rate (which are equal!) seems to have already gone away. Steve Hyland ( talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: I've (hopefully) clarified the article; further refinement is welcomed. Steve Hyland ( talk) 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states that "Recent images from Mars Global Surveyor indicate that Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is believed to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity." Could electrostatic charges have anything to do with this? I'm reminded of electrostatic accretion every time I think about regolith on the surface of an object too small to be in hydrostatic equilibrium. Anyone know where you might find info about this (one way or the other)? Sakkura ( talk) 00:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we note that Phobos is clearly not a moon in the sense that Luna, Umbriel, etc. are? I mean, it's traditionally been called a moon, but it's incredibly small (its mass is equivalent to 1.8 billionth Earths) and, more importantly, it isn't even spherical and is probably an asteroid, or possibly a chunk of Mars ejected from a collision with a planetoid.
Iron has a density of 7.874. Phobos has a density of 1.876. To be made of iron and have a size and density of Phobos, an object would merely need to have a hollow volume within the shell equal to 76.175% of the whole. Observations of Phobos are inconsistent with a hollow iron shell, but not merely because of observed density. The statement in the article does not claim mere inconsistency between the density and a hollow iron shell theory, but inconsistency with a hollow shell in general. The vary next paragraph refers to the possibility of Phobos being hollow. So it seems to me the claim of inconsistency between the density of Phobos and the hollow shell theory should be removed. -- Fartherred ( talk) 03:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The gravity of Phobos is small so the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters of the Mars Transfer Vehicle could be used to power the take off.
For a spacecraft massing 200 tonne including propellant with a Phobos thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 : 1 . (Ratio used by Earth LV.)
F = m a = 200,000 kg * 0.0084 m/s2 * 1.2 = 2016 N (or 453 lbf)
Larger thrusters will have a shorter burn time, particularly during landing.
Andrew Swallow (
talk)
20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Dave Alama just got it wrong in edits of the 16th of August. Stickney (crater) is the big one on the right edge of image. Will fix. Fartherred ( talk) 01:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that if anyone has any sourced info, including published speculations, on that issue, to go ahead and insert it. I reverted what I felt was an unsourced WP:OR. If we end up with multiple sourced explanations, we may possibly need to present all of them. Thanks, Crum375 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section to the "Literature" section noting Swift's mention of two moons of Mars in Gulliver's visit to Laputa. The naming of features after characters from Gulliver is clearly a reference to this association. There is no evidence whatsoever that Swift had any knowledge of Phobos and Deimos, but it is a sufficiently striking literary parallel that it was taken into account by the IAU -- APRCooper ( talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it not appropriate to state that Jonathan Swift wrote about the two hurtling moons of Mars in Gulliver's Travels in 1726, in Part 3, Chapter 3 (the "Voyage to Laputa") more than a 150 years before Hall found them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.52.80 ( talk) 05:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Fact checking is crucial, guys. This U.S. Naval Observatory page has a detailed account of the discovery of Phobos and Deimos: http://www.usno.navy.mil/hallmedal.html
Within we can read that "[...] I found a faint object on the following side and a little north of the planet. [...] This was at half past two o'clock on the night of the 11th." (discovery of Deimos on August 12). And later: "On August 17th while waiting and watching for the outer moon, the inner one was discovered." (discovery of Phobos on August 17, possibly 18).
Urhixidur 12:32, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
With a mean radius of 11.1 kms, and surface area of a sphere = 4π*r^2, shouldn't the surface area be something in the realm of 1548.3 km^2? Even if Phobos wasn't rounded at all, dimensions of 26.8 km by 22.4 km by 18.4 should put an upper limit of its surface area at ((26.8*22.4*2)+(26.8*18.4*2)+(22.4*18.4*2)) = 3011.2 kms^2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.177.84.122 ( talk) 02:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
JorisvS ( talk) 09:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
FWIW - added a newly created {{ PhobosCraterNames}} imagemap template (and related Image:USGS-Phobos-MarsMoon-Map.png) to the article - tried to label the crater and region locations as best as possible at the moment - (labels can be hyperlinked to relevant articles, like the label for Stickney (crater)) - some locations are "best-guesses" and are noted with a question mark (?) for now - the Phobos usgs pdf map seemed helpful - any further help with this template project would be welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 01:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Patrick Moore states in one of his standard text books that when he asked Shklovsky about the hollow Phobos claim, Shklovsky claimed that it had originally been intended to be a hoax. It seems that like all good hoaxes, this hoax had taken on a life of its own. AT Kunene ( talk) 08:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The bit about
Fred Singer supporting the idea of Phobos being a hollow artificial structure does not appear to be legitimate. Singer supposedly made some comments in a journal called Astronautics, but, this journal does not appear to exist, and the given ref doesn’t actually link to anything. The possibility that Singer ever supported Shklovsky is rather dubious. This stuff was removed from Singer’s BOLP, and should be removed from this article as well. Any objections?--
CurtisSwain (
talk)
07:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question: He said that it is undeniable that phobos is an artificial structure with the measurements that existed to this point. So if it really is artificial, and makes an effort to look like a moon, doesn't it make sense for the "controlroom" of phobos to adjust the orbit, so it stays undetected? Or am i wrong? Not trying to pitch a conspiracy, just honest interest if anybody considered this. I guess the only way we can prove it to be artificial is to send a probe to dig through the 100m of regolit dust... but the russian spacecraft didn't make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.111.111 ( talk) 06:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Phobos infobox says that Phobos is inclined 1.093° (to Mars's equator) and 26.04° (to the ecliptic). Mars infobox says its inclined 1.850° to ecliptic. I don't understand how the 26.04 ecliptic inclination is derived. Please correct or cite source. Twang ( talk) 16:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[4] : After 20-40 million years all but some stronger chunks will break up and disperse into a planetary ring. Zero talk 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In the exploration history, Mariner 9's observations are not mentioned. -anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.233.255.212 ( talk) 19:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The side bar and the article list two different orbital heights. The side bar says about 9000km and the opening paragraph says about 6000km. 198.84.193.145 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Phobos (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cpa.polyu.edu.hk/cpa/polyu/index.php?search=&press_section=&press_category=All&press_date=&mode=pressrelease&Itemid=223&option=com_content&page=1&order=desc&orderby=news_date&press_id=1672When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
These are contradictory because 1.8 cm/yr = 1.8 m/century, not 20 m/century. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 02:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I see the problem with contradicting numbers of orbital radius decrease over the years and estimated crash or break-up. 6000m/2m/100year= 300000years. Obviously, lower orbit would mean higher drag so the number should be even lower(excluding that 1.8m vs 2m difference). And there [6] is this claim that 30 to 50 million years are required for the Phobos to reach that altitude before crash/break-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.211.7 ( talk) 20:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I have removed 2 'citation needed' tags relating to the apparent size of Phobos seen from Mars that I considered supererogatory. The relevant numbers are easily calculated from the characteristics cited—in fact I had calculated them myself with pencil & paper before reading the article. We don't require a cite for 2+2=4 or pi=3.14159, this is only marginally more complex. -- D Anthony Patriarche ( talk) 08:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to provide maximum and minimum orbital speeds in addition to just the average?
Phobos's orbit is very nearly circular so I don't think there'd be much of a point to that -
SnailsAttack (
talk)
11:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The article states that a human who weighs 68kg/150lbs on Earth would weigh 60g/2oz on Phobos. But the surface gravity is quoted as 581.4µg = 0.0005814g. Multiplying that by the Earth weight gets you a Phobos weight of 39.5g/1.40oz. Am I missing something, or is one of the quoted figures wrong? Sakkura ( talk) 14:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know if the moon Phobos rotating around Mars is hollow. 2607:FEA8:A240:70A0:DDD6:73E3:4F72:4149 ( talk) 09:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The first episode of Doom (1993 video game), called 'Knee-Deep in the Dead', plays on Phobos, just as the second episode 'the shores of hell' plays on Deimos . There isn't a 'in popular culture' section, so I didn't know where to add it. Cheers! -- 95.88.94.95 ( talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
We need a bit more than just that to create such a section. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)