Exploration of Jupiter has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exploration of Jupiter is part of the Jupiter series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
...by this:
The reference http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/faqnav.html says "Starting out from a low Earth orbit, a spacecraft needs to increase its speed by 9 kilometers per second (19,440 mph) in order to reach Jupiter" (my italics). Also, as it stands, the word "fortunately" doesn't make sense. It implies that acheiving the stated delta-v for Jupiter is difficult, and yet if it's the same as required for LEO then it can't be that difficult as that operation is very routine. Possibly the difficulty is because the 9.2 km/s is on top of the delta-v needed for LEO, as the reference seems to be saying. Maybe someone who understands this could clarify the text in the article in these respects. Matt 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Launching a spacecraft on a direct Jupiter trajectory does requires a great deal of energy. In 2 cases Galileo and Cassini, the on pad mass of the spacecraft were too great to fly a direct trajectory to Jupiter. In other words, no launch system at the time could provide enough delta-V to make a direct flight. If it wasn't for the possibility of gravity assists maneuvers these spacecraft would never have reached Jupiter. So the word Fortunately makes sense in the sense we can still reach Jupiter with a high mass probe using gravity assists.
-- Ganesha ( talk) 19:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I peer reviewed this article because an editor wished to take it to FAC. In course of the peer review, I discovered major problems with the use of sources. These are the problems I found:
Because of the unacceptable use of sources, I believe that this article fails Criterion 2, that articles be factually accurate and verifiable. Ricardiana ( talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
asides from the last three, most of the issues should be fixed now. the latter 3 are websites about future planned missions, websites which seem to have been updated/trimmed since the GAN. Nergaal ( talk) 03:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wohoo! I don't quite understand exactly how is this supposed to work. I have made an initial reply a couple of days ago and your reply is time is up? You should better go back and read the instructions for GAR and you will see that #4 says
"Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The == Good article reassessment for [[{{{1}}}]] ==
[[{{{1}}}]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/{{{1}}}/ |reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. template can be used for this purpose, by placing
ArticleName has been nominated for a
good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to
good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are
here. on talk pages."
Nergaal (
talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly out of your reach so I think it is probably better if this gets moved from an individual reassessment to a community one. And by the way, stepping on other user's toes is also a form of incivility. Nergaal ( talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as we're discussing manned exploration, how about moving material from that article to this one? That article has never been sourced and I would prefer a small number of sourced sentences to a large, unsourced paragraph that basically amounted to wishful thinking. Serendi pod ous 09:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Every time I open the article I get question marks about how the comet fits into the scope of the article. One solution is to throw it out completely and put a sentence or two in the Galileo section, while the other one would be to expand that section into an Earth-based observation and exploration one. And speaking of this: is Hubble-looking-at-Jupiter within the scope of this article? Nergaal ( talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it actually FAC-able? To what I recall, the only section that may need more careful expansion/checking/cleanup is the paragraph of Major scientific results of the Galileo mission include:. Nergaal ( talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
query: is this actually true? Can't Mars be used as a slingshot too?
What were the best images of Jupiter before Pioneer 10 imaged it up-close? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we in American or British English here? -- John ( talk) 18:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exploration of Jupiter. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Exploration of Jupiter. 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://rasc.larc.nasa.gov/rasc_new/hope/Documents/HOPE_Paper.docWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Exploration of Jupiter. 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.jupitertoday.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=16990When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Re "will send back more data to Earth from the Jupiter encounter than the Pluto encounter.": Hasn't that already happened? -- Mortense ( talk) 18:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Exploration of Jupiter. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Exploration of Jupiter. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Brihaspatiyaan. The Indian version of Galileo, Juno, and JUICE. It will not only study Jupiter but also its rings and its Gali lean moo ns. 2400:ADC1:48A:9B00:ED2C:1081:8436:CF5B ( talk) 07:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)