This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Some material in the
Outer_space#Interstellar_space section seems to duplicate, or would be more appropriate in, the article on the
interstellar medium. The two articles do likely have different readership; the bits with more astronomical detail seem like candidates for that other article. (
sdsds - talk) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Exosphere link?
The article notably lacks a link to
exosphere. Is there a logical place to incorporate one? (
sdsds - talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
What exactly are you trying to say? It should be sufficient to state that outer space begins beyond a planetary atmosphere, which includes the exosphere.
Praemonitus (
talk) 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I strongly support the formulation of the lede sentence, which properly includes a link to the
atmosphere article. The question is likely about the section currently titled == Boundary ==. As acknowledged there, the notion of single boundary between space and atmospheres is something of an over-simplification.
And yet the === Regions near the Earth === sub-section currently reads, "Near-Earth space is the region of outer space above the Kármán line." Does that appear to contradict the lede sentence, if much of the thermosphere and exosphere are further towards space than that? (
sdsds - talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, going by the source, the qualifier about the Kármán line should be removed. I'll do so.
Praemonitus (
talk) 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Regions in the vicinity of Earth
The article
currently has a section titled 'Regions near the Earth' and the first sentence in that section begins with, 'Near-Earth space is the region of space extending from low Earth orbits out to geostationary orbits.' This might confuse readers because the section isn't solely about 'Near-Earth space' by this definition. We might want to change the section title to 'Regions in the vicinity of Earth' and explicitly cover every region of interest out to the sphere of influence, and in particular cover Sun-Earth Lagrange points, although this might slightly conflict with the following section on 'Interplanetary space.'
I agree, the chapters are a bit jumbled (see newest discussion).
Nsae Comp (
talk) 18:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mass edits
User @
Nsae Comp: made a series of major edits to this GA-rated article without discussion, most of which I have remediated. If there is an issue with this action, please discuss before making further large scale changes to this stable article. Thank you.
Praemonitus (
talk) 16:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry for not providing more summuries. Well the two main things I wanted to do was that the structure of the chapters reflects the spatial structure, so puting the boundary chapter just before regions. The Earth orbit chapter in that regard fit as part of the regions, afterall otherwise we have two seperate chapters talking about Earth orbits. ... The other thing that I wanted to do is to move the main image to the respective region, since it is in my opinion not a very good image representing space, because it shows Earth's atmosphere and its layers and not space. The image about the zodiacal light shows a very good spectrum of things that you would see of space away from Earth's atmosphere. Alternatively, how about the following image, literally in space and of space. But I dont think it is as resentative, because human eyes collect much more light in the darkness and has a wider view of space and thus more like the panorama of the zodiacal light. Zodiacal light viewed from the Moon
So I hope that explains most. Please tell me if my proposal is still not fitting.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
PS: the Spaceship One image makes almost no sense, about any other image of Earth and space is better fiting.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see we have some significant differences in philosophy regarding this page:
Regarding the lead image: there is no good image representing outer space, since is it essentially empty. Any space image is just going to present astronomical objects that are not space. Showing the zodiac isn't presenting space, it's showing illuminated dust. The current image at least presents the start of space as viewed by humans, and has served well for many years. Any replacement is going to have to be an informational improvement.
I view the "Earth orbit" section as a separate subject from the "Regions", as it concerns accessing outer space rather than a geometric entity. The four sections following "Environment" present legal and technological information regarding human access to space, so they are kind of a block.
The image in the Legal status section was regarding the weaponization of near space, so it was highly appropriate to the section.
You have a habit of breaking up paragraphs into one-liners, which I don't find at all satisfactory reading-wise. They look shoddy and unfinished, like a click-bit web site. You are also adding far too many section breaks, which goes against
WP:OVERSECTION. Sections for an article like this should never be stubs.
In short, I'm not seeing a lot of improvement from your edits.
Praemonitus (
talk) 12:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh my, yes you are right we have very different approaches. Well the law image is only useful to someone who knows what you want to hint to. Otherwise no one knows what it has to do with outer space and which laws apply to it. Alltogether I agree its difficult to find an image that captures outer space. But that does not lead to just using any image just because it is related to it. Regarding the zodiac light: well space is not empty, I think thats more ore less the whole point of this article and zodiac light is one of those phenomenons that show that. But it is not only the zodiac light, it is also the milky way in the background that shows the different maleup of space.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 16:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well the second paragraph mentions deploying weapons to space, and it is a significant ongoing concern. But yes the caption may need some clarification. Space itself is empty, per the definition in the first two sentences. I could see an illustration of difference space densities being relevant, for example.
Praemonitus (
talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I like your idea about densities for an image. Sofar I havnt found a suiting image. Though I came across the following image from the location of Earth article, which might serve better to depict space and its spectrum then the current. Otherwise it might well serve as an image introducing the regions section.
A logarithmic map of the observable universe. From left to right, spacecraft and celestial bodies are arranged according to their proximity to the Earth.
In most cases I don't care for horizontal images because they significantly disrupt the flow of text. 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding images, I would highly suggest to exchange the image at Evolution with the following (copy from linked Big Bang article), since it portrays the evolution of space more illustratively:
Timeline of the
expansion of the universe, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the
inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion
accelerates (artist's concept; neither time nor size are to scale).Nsae Comp (
talk) 20:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Evolution? I'll guess you mean "Formation and state". Yes I'm familiar with the image, and I'd be okay with that one even if the caption is bloated. I don't think we need two images of essentially the same thing.
Praemonitus (
talk) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How about one of the following images of high altitude nuclear tests for the law para, for obvious reasons and with a fitting text. Also because space pollution has now its own section.
Regarding the lead image how about the above suggested image but upright with a fitting text, since you dont like horizontal, which I get for the lead image:
I have added now the discussed formation image. And I would very much like the second atomic image (starfish) to be introduced, because it also shows different phenomena in space (like the spread of charged particles along the magnetic field of Earth, or the aurora). AND I more and more like the last image that listed here as the lead image (and move the current to boundary), because it is a nice catchy image and also portraits different phenomena of space as an introducing image (including the constant motion of things in space). PS: I also added to the regions a gallery overiew, instead of the above logarithmic single image, because it gives more focused detail to regions. I sincerely think it is very helpful for readers to give a comprehensive overview of space, since its such a vast and difficult to grasp thing.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 09:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Or instead of the schematic view of the edge, how about this real life image and description of the visibility and progressive nature of the edge of space (c/e from Earth article), instead of the bulky atmosphere indographic:
The yellow line of the lowest airglow, at about one hundred kilometers at the
edge of space and the lower edge of the
thermosphere (invisible), which continues with green and red bands of airglow or
aurorae over several hundred kilometers, and lies above the pink
mesosphere, white and blue
stratosphere, as well as orange
troposphereafterglow and silhouettes of clouds at the bottom.Nsae Comp (
talk) 12:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A problem I continue to have horizontal images is that you can't see any useful information unless you blow them up to poster sized. They just present a blurry block of color that is of dubious value.
If by last you mean the Earth's atmosphere image, then no. It's just a large mass of caption that communicates poorly compared to the current image.
I'm unclear what an atmospheric atomic test has to do with space.
I'm okay with a scale gallery, although it looks untidy and the embedded text is just a useless blur.
Praemonitus (
talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am sorry but if the caption is the problem about the edge of space/air glow image then the large infographic is equally problematic, because no one except someone who knows what to look for, or really inspects the details will find the Karman line in it. But using a real life image with a phenomenon (the yellow airglow line) that you see often in space images can truly communicate the edge of space, and I increasingly think that an image depicting the edge of space is what has been the attractive element of the current lead image. So placing an actual relateable image of that region is much more superior. And afterall I am not saying to get rid of the atmosphere infographic. I would put that one or another similar one in the boundary section.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 15:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding the nuclear explosion: this is a detonation at 400 km altitude and therefore constituting not only the original issue of space law, but also a true image about space. So I do not understand your argument about it being unrelated.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so you want to replace two pretty clear illustrations with what are essentially less informative fuzzy blurs. I'm a bit puzzled about how these images improve the article. What is your goal here? I could maybe see adding the boundary image to the boundary section, although it seems like there would be a better image available. That one's a bit vague visually; it's about 60-70% pure black.
Praemonitus (
talk) 21:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An image like the following could be more visually effective, for example. It encompasses spaceflight, a starry background, the edge of the atmosphere, and a visually appealing image of the planet below. It also roughly follows the rule of thirds.
Praemonitus (
talk) 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well originally the image had more description about what you see in it, and thats why I chose it, because it illuminated the different layers so one could see/learn to identify in real images the different layers. But I am completely fine with your proposed image for the intended purpose of a real image of the edge of space. Thanks.
Nsae Comp (
talk) 05:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.png)
_for_wikipedia_635_x_2586.png)
.jpg)
