Jump to content

Talk:New Horizons/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Current status

I don't think this ever-changing data,

  • As of May 1, 2015, New Horizons was about:
  • 0.59 AU (88,000,000 km; 55,000,000 mi) from Pluto
  • 32.29 AU (4.831×109 km; 3.002×109 mi) from the Sun
  • 31.86 AU (4.766×109 km; 2.962×109 mi) from Earth.
  • Countdown to New Horizons‍‍ '​‍s closest approach: 2 months, 11 days, 5 hours, 58 minutes, 12 seconds

needs to be in an encyclopedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the countdown doesn't need to be there, as long as the date of closest approach is mentioned somewhere. The rest of the info, IMO, does help provide some context and sense of scale for the reader though.
That being said, it only works as long as someone keeps updating it periodically....so if that stops or becomes impractical (after the main mission, perhaps), that would be a good point to remove this content. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bubba73: I don't see why you care about that, when there is so much to be improved upon in the article... really. The distances get updated once a month along with the image. Sometimes the distances are updated more frequently (normally by an unregistered editor), but such edits can be reverted, if the "ever-changing data" changes too frequently in your encyclopedic perception. As for the countdown template, where, if not here, is such a template more applicable on wikipedia, than in this particular section? Really, you should first start to care about the removals of all existing countdown-templates on wikipedia (there are several). The template updates itself automatically, and why do you want to deny useful information to the reader in the first place? Why don't you save your encyclopedic energy for July 14, when it needs to be removed from the article for good. Apologies for my rather grumpy tone. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 15:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which... Why was the item removed here obsolete? Will the trajectory map no longer be updated? Regards, JoergenB (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@JoergenB: Hi Joergen, thx for not pinning me ;) About two days prior to the edit in question I switched to a new version of the map, showing a sideview instead of a top-down perspective of the trajectory, and I added the text "The map also displays the positions of stars...from the actual perspective, which is slightly above the orbital plane of the planets" However the image got reverted back to the original map, and so it became obsolete (since from a top-down view there's no perspective slightly above the ecliptic) and I removed it (in two steps). In addition, I think I replaced the remaining text item with a more significant observation ("New Horizons resolution better than HST since May, 5"). Hope you had no problems to understand the motivation behind my other 21 edits I did during this period.. otherwise, please feel free to ask. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 01:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the only countdown I've seen on Wikipedia. I would be in favor of removing all of them - this is an encyclopedia, after all. An encyclopedia doesn't need to tell the number of seconds to an event. And after closest approach, the countdown may start showing the number of seconds since the closest approach. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bubba73: After July 14, the template will show "Event time has passed." Please don't speculate about things, that could be tested in no time. I therefore honestly doubt your conviction to do something about the usage of the mentioned templates on wikipedia, since that will definitely require a lot of time. I agree on the "seconds" being not helpful, though. That's why I already posted my suggestions on the talk page of the template, asking for specific amendments to the template in order to allow for a more customized display (i.e. a countdown without displaying the seconds, that is still accurate on the minutes). Thx for leaving the thread and not pinning me. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
If you doubt me, I asked about the policy on village pump yesterday: wp:Village_pump_(policy)#Countdown_clock. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That discussion was archived here.
Let's keep in mind that this is a 21st century encyclopedia. We are not talking about something that comes off a Gutenberg printing press. The very concept of an encyclopedia needs to keep up with the times. It is not unreasonable to have an encyclopedic article that keeps info that is fresh on an hourly basis or better.--Concord hioz (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It is still against policy. From Wikipedia is not: "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

2.News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Furthermore, it is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


It would be nice if someone could reformulate this line: "The spacecraft currently travels at 14.56 km/s (32,600 mph) relative to the Sun and at 13.80 km/s (30,900 mph) relative to Pluto. In astronomical units (AU), this is about 3.1 AU per year, or roughly 0.0084 AU per day."
It isn't clear if the second sentence refers to the speed relative to Pluto or to the Sun. If it were up to me, I'd remove it entirely or do something like 14.56 km/s (32,600 mph) (3.1 AU/y) which is a bit of a hack since Convert unfortunately doesn't support speeds in AU, but I'll let you guys handle it. // 87.67.92.238 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead, amend the line. You can do it, I know you can, don't be afraid to come under scrutiny. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 12:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It turns out I just was manipulating Convert badly... Fixed now. // 87.67.92.238 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In the discussion of the software reset of July 4, 2015, the claim is made that the data loss will have "no impact on the mission's main objectives ...". How is that possible? Reducing the data, even if it is duplicative, reduces confidence in any conclusions. If they weren't significant, why were they being taken? The Pluto Approach section makes the more reasonable claim that the it will have "minimal effect", (you could also say "insignificant" or "negligible" (effect or impact)).173.189.78.202 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's information taken directly from the press release on the spacecraft resuming operations, from the project scientists. Can't speculate how they came to that conclusion, but that was their determination regarding any missed observations. A(Ch) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the probe ended its flyby silent period on scheduled today and downloaded engineering data showing the the probe operated in at respects during the flyby in a nominal fashion. No unexpected events occurred. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate photos

One of the July 11 photos and one of the July 13 photos appear in both B&W and color. There is no need for both. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV - Pluto Flyby - Updated Schedule (3pm/et/usa - 7/15/2015) of Media Coverage

NASA-TV - Pluto Flyby - Updated Schedule (7/8/2015) of Media Coverage.[1] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC) - UPDATE (7/12/2015) of Media Coverage.[2] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) - UPDATE (07/15/2015) of Media Coverage[3] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Video (61:33) of NASA media conference (3pm/et/usa - 7/15/2015), with the latest images of the Pluto system from New Horizons, is at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTdaOhG9wE - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie; Buckley, Mike; Stothoff, Maria (July 8, 2015). "M15-104 - NASA Announces Updated Television Coverage, Media Activities for Pluto Flyby". NASA. Retrieved July 9, 2015.
  2. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie; Buckley, Mike; Stothoff, Maria (July 12, 2015). "M15-107 - NASA Pluto New Horizons July 13 Media Briefing Time Change, Media Center Open". NASA. Retrieved July 12, 2015.
  3. ^ http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-updated-television-coverage-media-activities-for-pluto-flyby

Misleading juxtaposition

Having the pictures of Pluto and Charon alongside each other in the Objectives section is a bit misleading. It sort of implies they're the same size. Could they be scaled appropriately? 78.148.11.33 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV - New Horizons mission - News Conference (1pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/17/2015)

NASA-TV - New Horizons mission - re Pluto flyby - News Conference (1pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/17/2015).[1][2] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Video (55:43) of NASA media conference (1pm/et/usa - 7/17/2015), with the latest images of the Pluto system from New Horizons, is at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAGwxl7FZWw - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ NASA - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html (a/o 10am/et/usa, 7/16/2015)
  2. ^ NASA - http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-release-new-pluto-images-science-findings-at-july-17-nasa-tv-briefing (a/o 5pm/et/usa, 7/16/2015)

Need new section for science results

A new section should be added between the sections Pluto system encounter and Current status to report science results (example: [1]) and the debate whether Pluto should be reclassified from "dwarf planet" back to "planet"[2] or perhaps "double planet".[3] The debate over Pluto's size has already been resolved.[4] Are there enough validated science results to justify a new section, or are the currently reported science results just first impression opinion? Should the science results be formatted in paragraph form, bulleted list, or chart form? Obankston (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

How about naming and linking such section to Geography of Pluto, Geology of Pluto and Atmosphere of Pluto. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Barnett, Amanda; Conlon, Kevin (July 18, 2015). "New photos show a youthful Pluto that's still taking shape". CNN.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Imam, Jareen (July 16, 2015). "Pluto's 'planet' debate reignited by New Horizons flyby". CNN.
  3. ^ "Pluto - the "Double Planet". Hubble Space Telescope. October 4, 1990.
  4. ^ "How Big Is Pluto? New Horizons Settles Decades-Long Debate". NASA. July 13, 2015.

Declined Voyager 1 visit to Pluto

After reading that it was originally an option - and it would be interesting to put into this article or the Voyager 1 article - if Voyager would have taken the Pluto flyby instead of Titan, what year would it have arrived there in that alternate history timeline? How much earlier would we have seen it?--Varkman (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Early 1986, apparently. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Undefined Acronym

The article uses the acronym "VBSDC" twice, without ever defining what that acronym stands for. It can be inferred that it stands for Venetia Burney Student Dust Counter but this is not explicitly stated, and the acronym is used before the introduction of Venetia Burney as a related subject. 71.34.82.167 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Good catch 71.34.82.167, this has been fixed. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for a "popular response" section?

I think the large amount of attention the pluto flyby received, both in traditional and digital media, deserves to be mentioned, especially considering the sentimental value many observers attach to Pluto and the wide array of non-astronomer types drawn in by the revealing of Pluto's true image.96.33.227.245 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

96.33.227.245, these have been the subject of contention in other articles as often times they expand to include off-the-cuff comments by entertainers or minor political figures. The coverage we have been seeing is also a product of today's 24 hour news cycle.
It may also lead to the introduction of politics to what is largely a science-centered mission. For example, should we mention that then Governor of Florida and current U.S. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush personally contributed a roll of quarters with one of them being installed on the New Horizons spacecraft?[1][2] --Marc Kupper|talk 20:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Message to ET

It looks like NASA will load a digital message onto New Horizons spacecraft addressed to any intelligent aliens that may find it in the future. Not sure where to add this info. Source: http://www.space.com/26332-nasa-new-horizons-one-earth-message.html. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto flyby details

"New Horizons was intended to pass within 12,500 km (7,800 mi) of Pluto, with this closest approach on July 14, 2015 at 11:50 UTC." So did it fly by at this height and on this date? The use of 'intended' suggests maybe it didn't? Or maybe this section was written before the flyby and no-one has updated it to say what actually happened? 86.138.58.73 (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV - New Horizons results - News Conference (2pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/24/2015)

NASA-TV - New Horizons results - re Pluto flyby - News Conference (2pm/et/usa, Friday, 7/24/2015)[1] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Video (68:40) of NASA media conference (2pm/et/usa - 7/24/2015), with the latest images of the Pluto system from New Horizons, is at => VIDEO[2] & IMAGES[3] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie; Buckley, Mike; Stothoff, Maria (July 21, 2015). "NASA Views Complex World: New Horizons Pluto Science Update Set for July 24". NASA. Retrieved July 22, 2015.
  2. ^ NASA Video (68:40) => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWr29KIs2Ns
  3. ^ NASA Images => http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Press-Conferences/July-24-2015.php

where are the close-up flyby photos?

Lots of hype about the flyby, supposedly 12,500 km (7,800 mi) of Pluto, with this closest approach on July 14, 2015 at 11:50 UTC. But all the released photos were taken either BEFORE or AFTER this radio silent close flyby. NASA was promising photos detailing 100 metre features or 50 metres per pixel. i.e almost at google earth quality. Did New Horizons take close up photographs of Pluto or not? Where are they? When will they be released? 60.241.100.51 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Downlinking the images and other scientific data will take about 15 months. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AU/a

Is the unit AU/a a unit of velocity, Astronomical Unit per year ("annum") - and AU/d = AU per day ("diem")? I didn't see it defined, and I think it should. I had difficulty in finding any on-line reference. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is, in fact, what those units are. I also agree that such unusual units require definition somewhere. Rwessel (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Archived New Horizons Official Website Pages

There are so many references to New Horizons Website pages are archived dead links,most of which are news and PI's Perspective.But these pages are still available without being archived,just in changed URLs.You can see them here: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Archives.php PI's Perspective: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/PI-Perspectives-Archives.php I tried editing them,but I found there are too many to edit,so I had to give up.It seems that the New Horizons Website had changed a lot since it was launched and all news pages except current ones have changed their URL.Kaileeslight (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Acronyms for science packages in section titles

Izno Has removed the acronyms from the titles of most of the science packages on New Horizons. For example, Solar Wind At Pluto (SWAP) was changed to just Solar Wind At Pluto. While "parens in titles (may) make (Izno) twitch" (smile), those are common, likely *the* common names, for those packages, and should be featured prominently. Consider how prominent the acronyms are in Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (where the section titles are just the acronyms, not including the "proper" names at all), Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (similar, but in the infobox, plus a list of external links with the full name) and Cassini–Huygens (almost exactly the pattern being discussed here). OTOH, the full names are important as well. Including both seems the best solution I suggest reverting to the former state. If not, the acronym on PEPSSI should be removed as well. MOS:HEAD does not appear to offer any guidance. Rwessel (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Horizons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There are too many pictures of Pluto and their moons. I deleted some of the redundant ones (same picture taken in a different day). I think that the gallery is still too large. The user should be redirected to Commons if he wants to see more images taken by New Horizons. Alpertron (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

2014 MU69

It says, “Having completed its flyby of Pluto, New Horizons has maneuvered for a flyby of Kuiper belt object 2014 MU69,...” I recommend saying when New Horizons made said maneuver.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I found, later in the article, where it says when the maneuvers were performed.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Two proposals (Gallery + Timline)

I have two relatively simple proposals to improve the article. First of all, I propose completely removing the "Gallery" section because it's mangling the shape of the entire article. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a service for displaying files; we have Commons for that. The emphasis should be on the well sourced prose with selected photos serving as a means for better understanding of what is written. In place of the gallery, I propose adding the Commons template ({{commons|New Horizons}}) at the bottom of the article, leading the reader to a category with 100+ images.

My other proposal is removing the "Timeline" section from the article as I believe it to be redundant after the detailed "Journey to Pluto" and "Encounter with Pluto" sections. In respect for those who created the table and took the time to fill it with information and references, instead of deleting it all together, I propose creating a separate list titled List of New Horizons mission milestones and linking somewhere in the article.

I realize that in the light of the mission getting significant public attention, a lot of people are involved in editing the article, so I won't go forward with the changes until a few days from now. I also hope to get some feedback from other editors by then. I'm open for suggestions and ideas. :-) --Saxum (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely disagree. I constantly read this article for the gallery and the timeline.Czolgolz (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a few images could be removed altogether, and it would be better to move some to specific paragraphs where possible. But in general I think this gallery is quite useful, and the timeline too. Some readers probably prefer just to look at the timeline rather than read through (long) paragraphs. The information may be repeated, but is presented in a different way. Gap9551 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we all agree that images (especially those provided by NASA) are an integral part of Wikipedia articles. This one is no exception. However, a limit has to exist and I'm sure that as it is, we have an article that is against WP:IDD ("Don't overload articles with images") and WP:Gallery ("However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article"). Considering New Horizons' main task was the exploration of Pluto, it is understandable the article be filled with a dozen images of Pluto. The problem is the present article has (not counting the CGI ones) 32 of them, and a lot of them depict similar things which is again contrary to WP:Gallery ("Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images"). I'm glad Gap9551 mentioned moving certain images to specific paragraphs. I did something like that back in 2013 with the Jovian moons section and I believe that we should resolve this in a similar manner. Don't get me wrong; I'm not an "image deletionist", I just belive the best and the most useful images should find their space in the appropriate paragraph of the article, not stacked up at the bottom of the page creating a gallery that is longer than the prose above it. If it would help you get the idea of what I'm proposing, I can copy the article to my sandbox with the images I think are needed, and without those I believe are excessive?

As for the Timeline, I agree the article is really long and some users prefer just to check out the Timeline for a quick glance at the most important dates. That's why I'm not proposing completely deleting it, but moving the section to for a new article (list). Considering a lot of effort has already been put into the Timline, I don't see a reason why with some expansion it couldn't become a Featured list sometime in the future which would be a nice addition to the main article.--Saxum (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The gallery here is absurdly large, with a lot of topical redundancy to images already in the article. This is a growing problem in many astronomy and spaceflight related articles. Timelines are great, and the existing information would work well in a separate article where additional data could be filled in. I would suggest keeping an abridged version here, though, containing the highlights of the mission rather than being so detailed. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the images need to be trimmed somewhat. As to separating the timeline, there is some precedent for moving it into its own article, see Timeline of Galileo Jupiter orbiter tour, for example. Also, I think the design and construction section may be a candidate for moving to its own article, and leaving a "main" link and summary here. Rwessel (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Seeing how users (at least most of them) agree the number of images is too big, and another user mentioned the same issue about a month ago, I'm going to be bold on this one and remove the excess images. I'm open for discussion, and if you feel an image has been unjustly removed, I'm sure we can agree on it on the talk page. Before I go forward with this, I would also like to present an alternative in the form of mini galleries located in appropriate paragraphs with a link to the appropriate Commons category. Example of the proposed gallery in the Jupiter encounter paragraph on my sandbox page.--Saxum (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
We can remove about half of the images of Pluto and Charon. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, it's good to see that some pruning has happened, but I think a bit too much. Surely this article deserves more than *two* close up images of Pluto. Rwessel (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask for a bit more patience because there is more work to do before the article shapes up into its "final form". I would also like to point out at that despite New Horizon's main goal was the exploration of Pluto, this is not an article about the dwarf planet itself but the spacecraft, so I would be careful with overloading the article with images of Pluto. I'd rather see users expanding the prose in certain paragraphs. That said, I do plan on adding an additional photo or two of the close encounter in the "Future mission objectives" paragraph after I remove those CGI images. I recon an actuall of a Kuiper belt object is more useful than an artistic interpretation.--Saxum (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Horizons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

@MJG639: it is okay to add the book in the Further reading section, but not the link to Amazon per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Please find a more appropriate link. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK - sorry, will do! Thanks for letting me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJG639 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd welcome views on the contents of the Further Reading section - are there are more to add? Are the references that are currently there useful? MJG639 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Horizons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Eris as a future target?

I thought Eris was one of the proposed future targets to visit after Pluto. This is mentioned here also: http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/1/11686404/nasa-new-horizons-mission-funding-extension-mu69 Nzoomed (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

How is panning timed during flybys

Article does not (yet) seem to say if the camera pointing/panning during the Pluto flyby was pretimed or was controlled by onboard feedback using the camera feed. Timing might be a more critical problem for the Jan 2019 flyby of 2014 MU69 (whose distance might not be known as precisely as Pluto). ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a source handy, but a number of media events have stated all the science and photography was pre-planned. Yes, MU69 may be a smaller target, but in the days and weeks leading up to the flyby, its specifics and the spacecraft timing will be narrowed down continuously. They'll include a margin of error, but the timings shouldn't be an issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New Horizons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New Horizons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New Horizons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Horizons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Mobile friendly timeline

The big table is difficult to read in a smartphone. I think that it should be converted to lists. For example:

Preparation phase

  • January 8, 2001: Proposal team meets face-to-face for the first time at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. [194]
  • February 5, 2001: New Horizons name chosen. [194][195]
  • April 6, 2001: New Horizons proposal submitted to NASA. It was one of five proposals submitted, which were later narrowed to two for Phase A study: POSSE (Pluto and Outer Solar System Explorer) and New Horizons. [194]
  • November 29, 2001: New Horizons proposal selected by NASA. Started Phase B study. [196]
  • March 2002: Budget zeroed by Bush administration, later overridden. [197][198]
  • June 13, 2005: Spacecraft departed Applied Physics Laboratory for final testing. Spacecraft undergoes final testing at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). [199]
  • September 24, 2005: Spacecraft shipped to Cape Canaveral. It was moved through Andrews Air Force Base aboard a C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft. [67]
  • December 17, 2005: Spacecraft ready for in rocket positioning. Transported from Hazardous Servicing Facility to Vertical Integration Facility at Space Launch Complex 41. [200]
  • January 11, 2006: Primary launch window opened. The launch was delayed for further testing. [201]
  • January 16, 2006: Rocket moved onto launch pad Atlas V launcher, serial number AV-010, rolled out onto pad. [202]
  • January 17, 2006: Launch delayed. First day launch attempts scrubbed because of unacceptable weather conditions (high winds). [68][69]
  • January 18, 2006: Launch delayed again Second launch attempt scrubbed because of morning power outage at the Applied Physics Laboratory.

Launch phase

  • January 19, 2006: Successful launch at 19:00 UTC. The spacecraft was successfully launched after a brief delay due to cloud cover. [70][71]

Pluto pre-encounter phase

  • April 7, 2006: Passes Mars orbit. The probe passed Mars' orbit: 1.7 AU from Earth. [83][204]
  • June 13, 2006: Flyby of asteroid 132524 APL. The probe passed closest to the asteroid 132524 APL in the Belt at about 101,867 km at 04:05 UTC. Pictures were taken. [205]

And so on. What do you think? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Added JUPITER pre-encounter phase and JUPITER flyby phase. These were quite important and some decent science was obtained. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Downlink/Download

Downlink is a characteristic of connection. Download is a characteristic of data transmission.

It's either Download or Transmission of downlink's data. But Downlink of data isn't really correct. Elk Salmon (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

[3] Elk Salmon (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pluto objectives

They are marked as "required", "expected" and "desired". Did they all get done? Time for an update. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended Mission paper

The New Horizons Kuiper Belt Extended Mission S.A. Stern, H.A. Weaver, J.R. Spencer, H.A. Elliott, the New Horizons Team, 21 Jun 2018

After the flyby of Ultima Thule, the spacecraft will still have 11 kg of propellant, which can be used for course changes and flyby closely another object ([4], but I just can't figure where in the article to insert that info. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
New Horizons#Post 2014 MU69 encounter events seems like the right place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ultima Thule research results to be detailed there

I suggest this flyby and its research results shall essentially be described under Ultima Thule's article, not under New Horizons, as almost all we will ever know about that tiny snowballs will be derived from the flyby, whereas that flyby is only a smaller part of New Horizons'Meerwind7 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC) mission.

"Ever" is a long time. Plus, expect some things to be studied via space telescopes. And the Ultima Thule flyby is part of the New Horizons mission, so it's important to cover it here.
All that said, are you suggesting a summary here, with the details at the article about the object nicknamed Ultima Thule? That could be a good solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. This article is much too big. It’s unwieldy for the reader who wants to get a thorough summary of the topic. There are many sections with more detail than might be needed. These chunks of the article should be moved to child articles or related articles and be replaced with a crisp summary. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

RTG

The article currently talks of nonfissile non weapons grade Plutonium as the power source but doesn't give a source for this.

This is almost certainly intended to mean Plutonium 238, and that's almost certainly what the RTG uses. And yes, it's nonfissile, that's fine.

Which I guess means it's not weapons grade either... but that's a very confusing way to put it. There's no such thing as weapons grade Plutonium 238. Plutonium 238 is no more useful for nuclear weapons than sand. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

https://rps.nasa.gov/missions/7/new-horizons/ reads in part Powered by: One GPHS-RTG which links to

https://rps.nasa.gov/power-and-thermal-systems/thermal-systems/general-purpose-heat-source/ which is entirely about Plutonium 238 energy sources. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

With the recent split of the article Galileo (spacecraft), I propose that this article should be split into three separate pages: New Horizons (spacecraft), New Horizons program (or New Horizons mission?), and Timeline of New Horizons (spacecraft). The entire article currently exceeds the 100 kB size threshold for necessary splits as stated in WP:SIZESPLIT.

I suggest the following sections to be moved into their respective articles:

Any thoughts? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support By cited precedent and article size. The lines along which we split are debatable, although the proposal should work. I did not participate in the split discussion for Galileo, and I have to say that Galileo project is an unfortunate title. This is what ESA refers to for their Galileo project. A Google search for the term brings up only pages about the satellite navigation program for the first couple of pages. We should take care that the titles we create reflect the most common name. Renerpho (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Question Why does Galileo Project appear as a red link? Shouldn't it link to this page? Renerpho (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Project is capitalized, while the target is not. Fixed it in the posting but not in your question. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree I don't see why the article needs to be trimmed. This article is a great source of information and is a way to get all the facts about the probe, the mission, the program, and everything else related to it in one place. It's like if you had one article for New York City (the physical, geographical place) and New York City (culture, economy, etc.) Healpa12 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Nobody says that the information should be removed! The idea of splitting the article is to make it easier to find the information you're looking for. There is a general guideline that articles larger than 50 kB may need to be divided, and any article larger than 100 kB almost certainly does. This article currently stands at 185 kB, which is probably too long to be practical. That said, following the guideline is not always possible. Usually this is because the article has already been split, but there are no further ways to divide it. Your example New York City illustrates this nicely: The main article stands at 364 kB, considerably longer than the cited threshold. However, this is after all the reasonable splits have been made. Culture of New York City is its own article, which has been moved out of the main New York City article and currently has a size of 89 kB. Similar for Geography of New York City (13 kB), Economy of New York City (50 kB), History of New York City (56 kB) and several other spinoffs. Luckily, the New Horizons article is small enough that all the subdivisions would be smaller than 100 kB. Renerpho (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I concede and I now agree that the article should be split Healpa12 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "New Horizons Program" doesn't seem like an intuitive split to me. You could possibly split out the timeline if you really wanted to. But the timeline section isn't very big, so I don't find the argument to split that to be a smoking gun either. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While long, it's a reasonably complete look at at a highly successful mission, and splitting it does not serve the average reader, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nrco0e and Renerpho: I'd support a split in order to comply with the size split guideline, but it seems a bit excessive to make it three pages instead of two. It would be a much better idea to just have one parent article about the mission – including a background, timeline, and results – and one child article detailing the spacecraft herself, with the parent article having a relatively small section about the spacecraft written in a summary style. Those are my thoughts. — Molly Brown (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that! As I said, the lines along which we split are up for debate. Renerpho (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment about 2 trillion galaxies (post arakoth events)

The linked source indicates that 2 trillion galaxies are not ruled out, with an editorial comment made at a later date:

https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2021/news-2021-01

Correction: A prior version of this release indicated that the New Horizons observations were inconsistent with an earlier study that estimated there are 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. The New Horizons observations do not place a constraint on the total number of galaxies but rather do constrain the total amount of light all galaxies emit in the ultraviolet-optical bandpass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:701:6C00:C4A4:3F8F:EAE8:B213 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is now included in the article. Renerpho (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

JPL

Both APL and SwRI are preceeded by their name in full, linked there. JPL should be done the same way the first time it is mentioned. --142.163.195.127 (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Encounter with Arrokoth - Data download

According to the estimation, the data download shoud have been finished. Has it?

Best regards, Santiago Jordá — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.47.73 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Horizons/Archive_2&oldid=1243803227"