Talk:Kuiper belt/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] GA review comments

1. The first half of the article is poorly cited. The same point was bought out duing the peer review but little action has gone in there. 2. Either add atleast stub articles for Frederick C. Leonard and Al G.W. Cameron or remove the wikilink. i would prefer the former.Done 3. "have been discovered in the belt, almost all of them since 1992." - why was 1992 a wateshed year? was a system installed to find about kuiper belt objects. need details here 4. as put in by someone above, the image in the lead section fits oort cloud and a different image will help better visualization of kupier belt. --Kalyan 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured this would happen. The article may have been A-class but it seemed pretty threadbare to me. I've been planning to get going on it after finishing Uranus; now things are a bit more urgent, but I still need to see Uranus through. Serendipodous 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK; started a rework, but it's late and I'm tired. So I'll paste some embryonic refs here until tomorrow

[1] [2] [3] Serendipodous 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK; I'm off to the library. By the time I get back, this article should have substantially increased in size. Serendipodous 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, 300 edits later, what do you think? Serendipodous 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Created the two astronomer's stubs. Surprised that such men of repute have'nt even an entry in Wikipedia. Were they in the text? I didnt spot any red links there! Hope we have GA now!AshLin 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good for GA. Please move it to FAC as i see potential for approval. --Kalyan 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid belt picture

Image:InnerSolarSystem-en.png

Is anyone willing or able to create an analogue of this picture to illustrate the Kuiper belt? One that included the Centaurs, the Neptune Trojans and, if possible, the scattered disc? It would be hard, but it would be very useful. Serendipodous 10:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, if no one competant will, I will. I already have the minor planet center data, and code to convert from orbital elements to cartesian coords. But I'm no master of IDL and GNUplot doesn't exactly make the sexiest images. WilyD 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers, numbers I need numbers

Does anyone know where I can locate up to date information on the numbers of objects in the Kuiper belt? Not only the total number of objects but also the numbers of cubewanos and plutinos. Thanks. Serendipodous 11:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating. They have a list of TNOs but it is not numbered, plus it doesn't make a distinction between KBOs and TNOs, or from CKBOs and resonant KBOs. Serendipodous 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html this list of TNOs plots like
so I'm not sure the exact criterion used to generate it, but there are 1017 objects on the list. Never travels inside Neptune's orbit + ? I can play around with it a bit more, though my supervisor is pressing me to do real work these days. Cheers, WilyD 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That is what they call above and beyond the call. Wonderful job. Thanks a lot! Serendipodous 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really deserve the praise - I had already made this plot for something else. WilyD 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you perhaps tell me how many are in that first clump? Thanks. Serendipodous 09:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the semi-major axis is rounded up for all these guys?
I believe the semi-major axis is rounded up for all these guys?

It's a little over 200 - but memebership is a little tough to guess exactly just from a, e, i. I can try to give you a tighter number later - but I need to go home and sleep right now. Cheers, WilyD 10:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job. It's much better; you might try increasing the size of the pixels to make them stand out more. Again, thank you~ Serendipodous 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serendipodous Request

Alright, the planets are too big and this version is too low resolution. The postscript is nicer, and I could probably direct convert postscript to png or ... something. Anyways, Sun is red, planets are green, normal KBOs are blue, Centaurs and Scattered Disk objects are pink/purple, Jupiter's Trojans are Aquamarine and Neptune's Trojans are yellow. Okay, the colours stink. What else are you looking for? I'd be happy to give the raw data to someone who plots better too. WilyD 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's great! All I'd suggest is using lighter pixels against a darker background to make the objects easier to discern. Thank you! Serendipodous 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Like this second version? WilyD 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, in the thumbnail version the second form is too dark.  :( WilyD 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's much better, though, and I hate to ask this, but could you perhaps mark out the objects with lighter colours so that they stand out more easily? ThanksSerendipodous 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Even when I mark them quite lightly, they don't seem to show up very well in the thumbs. I may have to go back to the drawing board. WilyD 18:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. I think all that needs to be done is to increase the size of the pixels marking out the objects to make them more distinguishable. Plus it might be a good idea to name each of the planets to make the image more recognisable. Serendipodous 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a bit better, but I don't like the thumb very much still. And I can label the planets - you'll have to forgive a fool who didn't realise that wasn't obvious from the context. WilyD 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
To us, it's obvious because we've been dealing with it for ages. But the average person who might click onto Wiki for the first time most likely doesn't even know the Kuiper belt exists. This picture will be a great visual icon to stir people's minds; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and then in place of Pluto we find this great swarm of objects. It will be a great way to educate people about a very controversial subject. Besides naming the planets, the only thing I'd further suggest is that, like the asteroid image, their orbits be marked out. Thank you very much for all your help. I'm all abuzz about this picture. It's going in about ten separate articles once it's finished. Serendipodous 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I labelled the four planets and the Sun. I considered labelling Pluto as well - but figured that'd be more confusing than helpful. WilyD 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I'll swap it out; let's see how it looks in place! Serendipodous 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aahy yes! It's brilliant! Go have a look. Serendipodous 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be cropped to end at -60, -60 so there is less empty space and there's more space for the actual iamge? — Pious7 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Any closer and we start chopping off objects (I didn't look too closely at it, but I assume the range is currently set by Eris (dwarf planet). WilyD 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)