Talk:Voyager 2
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Voyager 2 Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config
Please check a source that looks funny
The "From Engineering To Big Science" source (currently #5) looks funny / off because it has a long segment written with it. Is this meant to be in the article? Would other editors please check this? Astrolabe 150c (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Talk:Voyager 2/GA1
Did you know nomination
Template:Did you know nominations/Voyager 2
Dubious Mass / Mass Type
This article currently suggests that the "launch mass" of this space probe was 721.9 kilograms (1,592 lb). The article for Voyager 1 lists its launch mass as 815 kg (1,797 lb), but also provides a "dry mass" matching Voyager 2's :launch mass" (I'm guessing the difference between "launch" and "dry" is only(?) propellants.) The cited source for Voyager 1's launch mass now 404s, but the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine corroborates (~2017) the mass, at the time of launch, also also provided a current estimate mass, but no dry mass. The NASA source cited for Voyager 2's mass does not specify what kind of mass it is. I did not spot other references to the crafts' "dry masses" explicitly.
Obviously there's something wrong, and the Voyager 2 entry is the more dubious one. I'm hoping someone who has a little time to dig into this (or has better insight) on the topic might fix this appropriately.
Thanks. 147.219.82.254 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
"Encounter" times for Ross 248 and Sirius
The "encounter" times for Ross 248 and Sirius don't seem to be correct or match the velocity of Voyager 2. The current text reads:
[T]he spacecraft travels one light-year in about 19,541 years [...] In roughly 42,000 years, Voyager 2 will pass the star Ross 248 (10.30 light-years away from Earth)[...] If undisturbed for 296,000 years, Voyager 2 should pass by the star Sirius (8.6 light-years from Earth)[...]
If the given speed is correct, then Ross 248 would be around 200k years and Sirius a little less than that. Both stars seem to be getting closer to Earth, but surely that won't make that much of a difference?
Can anyone shed light on this? Fh1 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- The star's going to Voyager 2 more than Voyager 2's going to the star. Voyager 2's 15 kilometers further from the Sun every second, Ross 248's >77 kilometers closer to the Sun each second and will be 3.048 light-years away 36,500 years from now over 7 light-years closer than it is now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. But isn't the Sirius encounter time still wrong: shouldn't it be way _less_ than 200k years, given that it's approaching the Sun? Fh1 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The scientists got that right too. Sirius is moving several times faster than 5.5 km per second will only get slightly closer to Earth 7.8 vs 8.6 light years and is rather far from the constellation Voyager 2's going toward and is luckily going more sideways than to Earth in almost the perfect direction which will allow it to get as close as 4.3 light years to Sirius. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. But isn't the Sirius encounter time still wrong: shouldn't it be way _less_ than 200k years, given that it's approaching the Sun? Fh1 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)