Talk:Outer space

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Outer space: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Uncategorized

Shouldn't the possiblity of Creationism be included? I mean, it makes it sound like the Big Bang is 100% assured of a thing. Not that I'm religious, but I'm speaking on behalf of those who are, and to keep Wikipedia an unbiased place. Also... why is this page so short? --CrazyCasey 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion doesn't belong in this article. Religious views can be applied to everything, doesn't mean we should list them in every article. It's not a matter of bias, but of Undue_weight. With the way outer space is related to physics and astronomy (specially the cosmology which we discuss), utilizing anything but a scientific tone would be giving whatever other view undue weight in the article. Star Ghost 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please leave my "See also" to the Karman line in: I was trying to search on the no-accent name and missed because the link was re-labeled with the accents. I will propose a rename on the page. -- Fplay 22:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If I explode then will blood come from my eyes? What if the pressure was removed very slowly, from 100 kPa at a rate of say 1 kPa a minute and supposing I had breathing equipment? --Username132 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the density of air in outer space?

0gm-3?

There isn't air in outerspace... --CrazyCasey 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he meant matter? There are a few lonely atoms wandering around. I remember seeing this kind of statistics in some physics book. Star Ghost 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have placed uncategorized and undated posts in this section. Please sign all comments with 4~ and place in a new subsection.statsone 06:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with religion

I don't think this section is relevant, does anyone protest it's removal?

[edit] Link Removal

I have removed the links to website in anther language for 2 reasons. One is they were the same site. Second, they were in another language. More appropriate to be placed in that wiki's language site.

Also, please sign all comments with 4 ~'s statsone 15:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a terrible bias towards Evolution and its many unproven theorys and dating methods. As usual this has a terrible effect on readers as more and more people begin to accept these things as fact when any knowlegable evolutionist knows they are NOT facts at all. There is plenty of science that is real fact and disproves the whole "really old earth" theory. "Zealotii 09:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] In space on the Moon?

Is one in space when on the Moon? I'd say one isn't in space when on a celestial body. Although of course there are border cases, like being on a asteroid. And on Earth you enter space when the air gets too thin, but on the Moon there is no atmosphere. Or is that not the criterium? DirkvdM 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer would depend on the audience. I, for example would think "in space" means in freefall and outside the atmosphere of any nearby planets, but I think the Man on the Bondi Tram would think that "space" is anywhere beyond Earth, or altenatively, anywhere where a space suit was needed. (days after writing I noticed I didn't sign this) --Polysylabic Pseudonym 04:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that one is not in space when on the moon, if one was to travel up from the lunar surface, at what point would he/she be "in space"? Would it be the same point at which a person leaving the earth's atmosphere is considered to be in space? Vsst 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum

The_monkeyhate, do you have any grounds for your assertion that unprotected humans would freeze in milliseconds in space? It's flatly contradicted by the NASA doc cited. SeanWillard 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Their orbits never "decay" because there is almost no matter there to exert frictional drag.

I would like to change "Their orbits never "decay" because there is almost no matter there to exert frictional drag." to "Their orbits never "decay" because the pull of the earth's gravity is canceled by the centrifugal force of their tangential velocity"

I have removed this business. Orbits do decay!. The Hubble Space Telescope gets raised every time it is serviced to keep it in orbit, for example. In geosynchronous orbit, there is a lot less matter than in low Earth orbit, but it still is a issue and all satellites have a rocket and spare fuel to deal with this. --EMS | Talk 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outer space *vs* inner space

I realise that the popular media use the term "outer space" for everything, but it is my understanding that "outer space" refers to space outside the solar system, while inner space (or plain "space") refers to space within the solar system.

--Black Walnut 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I came to this talk page specifically to criticize the use of the stupid "outer space" term. For such to exist, there must also be "inner space", which is a ridiculous conecpt. Also, religion shouldn't be mentioned. That's ridiculous too. --194.251.240.114 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the internet, and the only places I found "inner space" mentioned where in the titles of science fiction books and movies and in regard to yoga type stuff. Also, according to answers.com, outer space is defined as "Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to the boundaries of a celestial body or system, especially: 1. The region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere. 2. Interplanetary or interstellar space."

Vsst 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Confused

This isn't necessarily questioning the legitimacy of the claim..but a source would be helpful. 32 km (105,000 ft) - Turbojets no longer function. 34.7 km (113,740 ft) - Altitude record for manned balloon flight It just seems..odd, to me, that a manned balloon flight could fly above the point where turbojets no longer function.

[edit] Milestones to outer space

The 62,000 km figure is totally wrong. Earth has more gravity than the Moon so this point has to be most of the way away from it. 320,000 km Earth altitude is more like it (the distance from the earth to the moon minus 62,377 km). Also, this might make a reader think the moon's zone of influence is a "layer", rather than the small sphere surrounding the moon that it is. Sagittarian Milky Way 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure the author mis-read the Apollo 8 article about this. Wasn't it 62,000 km from the Moon? Trojan_points#L2 puts it at "61,500 km from the Moon." Sdsds 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the moon's distance itself varies by almost as much as the 62,000 km, moving the balancing point in and out. Does it even matter? (for example, many of the spacecraft orbits are given only as an approximation). Also, perigee is wrong, I'm going to change it. Sagittarian Milky Way 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right: the distance to the L1 balancing point doesn't matter so much. What really matters for most mission planning is the delta v required to get there. If you can get there, and if you're willing to wait long enough, then a clever sequence of gravity slingshots can get you anywhere in the universe using only minimal thrust. (See Interplanetary Transport Network.) In that sense, this point does matter, because it's the nearest place "beyond" the Earth's gravitational domain. Sdsds 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, the cool thing is that it's a bubble of extraterrestrial gravity, deep inside Earth's Hill Sphere. What I meant though is that since the milestones to space altitudes for the ISS, Mir, Skylab, etc. are approximate then the L1 distance can be too. The section looks much cleaner that way. Sagittarian Milky Way 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microgravity Statements

In the "Satellites" section, I'm not sure the following statement is completely correct:

"A common misconception is that people in orbit are outside Earth's gravity because they are obviously "floating". They are floating because they are in "free fall": the force of gravity and their linear velocity is creating an inward centripetal force which is stopping them from flying out into space. Earth's gravity reaches out far past the Van Allen belt and keeps the Moon in orbit at an average distance of 384,403 km (238,857 miles). The gravity of all celestial bodies drops off toward zero with the inverse square of the distance."

Didn't astronauts still "float" while travelling to the moon at a constant velocity without a "free fall" state?Drawingnearisgood 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Centripetal/Centrifugal Confusion

The article states that:

"A spacecraft has not entered orbit until it is traveling with a sufficiently great horizontal velocity such that the acceleration due to gravity on the spacecraft is less than or equal to the centripetal acceleration caused being its horizontal velocity (see circular motion)."

This sentence is slightly incoherent and slightly sketchy on the physics. If you choose to describe it in the Earth's "inertial" reference frame, it is in - circular -orbit when the force of gravity is of the exact magnitude to act as a centrifugal force (put in better English though). Or, in the craft's reference frame, "until the centrifugal force cancels out the gravitational force". The non-circular case is a bit more complicated and doesn't really belong here. 163.1.99.20 21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free fall

The section for Sateliites describes satellites as being in Free Fall. This seems to be wrong. They are not in free fall ( only under the influence of gravity) butin orbit. Comments?statsone 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Shouldn't the words "Outer" and "Space" both be capitalized since it designates a place name? SharkD 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's style [1] says no. Just what has been agreed on. --statsone 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But Outer Space is a region, not a celestial body; and it is certainly well known. SharkD 06:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is where it does get tricky. I would take it as small case only because it is wikipedia. You may want to post a discussion on the style talk page and ask for comments--statsone 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC). [2]
Well, if outer space were capitalized, then interplanatary space would need to be capitalized, too. I guess I'll leave it at that. The reason I ask is because I was once corrected for not capitalizing it. SharkD 06:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum in Space

For the cite needed, I found 1×10-15 Torr [3]. ( Do a search on "pressure in interstellar space" in google). Converting back to Pa, I get 1.333×10-21 Pa which is different from what is listed. Looking back at the history of the article, there have been many numbers --Statsone 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the vacuums created here on Earth much weaker than the vacuum of outer space? The whole "what would happen if exposed in outer space" bit seems to discuss the effects in vacuums created on Earth, which I suspect would not be the same in outer space. Please correct me if I am wrong. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the Article

A way to flesh out this article would be to add: some definition of how crafts move in space being that there are no molecules; how much gravity exerts its force to the moon and an explanation on how that force extends to "stationary" satalites; and how distance is measured in space. I am not an astrophysicist, just a curious person, so I would appreciate those additions as I do not consider any to be "undue weight". Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.2.11 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] space vs outer space

There's a large number of wikilinks to space that ought to be linked here instead. Anyone have any idea how these can most easily be fixed? --jwandersTalk 10:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I just searched for cislunar space, something decidedly more specific from outer space, and was re-directed here. cislunar is a unique area that should have its own page or at least a mention on this page. (cislunar is the area between the earth and the moon) 128.205.11.224 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)