Talk:Parker Solar Probe

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

End of Life[edit]

I don't see any information about the end of mission, only "Mission duration 7 years (planned)". what happens in 2026, will it be left in orbit or deliberately crashed into the sun?

It would be extremely difficult to deliberately crash it into the Sun, and I don't know of any reason why it should be done. I suppose it'll do so eventually. Well before that, presumably they'll stop trying to control it--then, inevitably, it will be facing the Sun the wrong way on one of its close passes and be fried to uselessness. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they might try a manoeuvre that brings it even nearer to the sun that eventually might damage the probe, or it just will have critical failure and stop working or run out of fuel.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a "manoeuvre" would probably need another close pass of Venus. Once those aren't happening anymore, I doubt if such a change could be made. They can tweak the approach to Venus to fine-tune the gravitational assist, but I doubt that the thing has enough fuel to change its close approach to the Sun to any degree that would be significant. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too am curious to know how this mission is to end. Given that the objective is to gather measurements as close to the Sun as possible, this leads me to think that (perhaps) the objective is served by getting progressively closer to the sun until - at some indeterminate point - the probe fails. If that is the case, then one would hope that the ultimate failure mode is determined before communications is totally lost. Such failure data - in addition to any primary mission data collected - would be invaluable to the definition and design of a future successor mission. In any event, the absence of end of mission detail is glaring.
Enquire (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Enquire: I'll start by repeating what I said earlier. It's the close passes by Venus that bring about the closer approaches to the Sun. After the last scheduled close pass of Venus, if no more such passes are mathematically possible, then there probably isn't a way to bring the close pass of the sun any closer than it will already be. As for what might happen after the end of the planned mission, Wikipedia can't really say anything on it unless something authoritative and reliable has been published. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of probe vs. speed of light, revisited[edit]

Once again, someone has "corrected"--incorrectly--the planned maximum speed of the probe in terms of the speed of light. Someone changed 0.064% of the speed of light to say 0.00064% of the speed of light. And it's always an IP User, so we can't send that person a message explaining his/her error. I'm going to add an invisible note on the Edit page (visible while editing--doesn't show in the article). And here, let me try to tabulate what's been explained--what I'VE explained--here earlier.

  • The full speed of light is 1.0 × c, WHICH EQUALS 100% of c (notice the percent sign!)
  • One half the speed of light is 0.5 × c, WHICH EQUALS 50% of c (notice the percent sign!!)
  • One tenth of the speed of light is 0.1 × c, WHICH EQUALS 10% of c (notice the percent sign!!!)
  • One one-hundredth of the speed of light is 0.01 × c, WHICH EQUALS 1% of c (notice the percent sign!!!!)
  • One one-thousandth of the speed of light is 0.001 × c, WHICH EQUALS 0.1% of c (notice the percent sign!!!!!)
  • One ten-thousandth of the speed of light is 0.0001 × c, WHICH EQUALS 0.01 of c (notice the percent sign!!!!!!)
  • SO, 64/100,000 of the speed of light (the planned maximum speed of Parker) IS 0.00064 of c, WHICH EQUALS 0.064% of c (NOTICE THE PERCENT SIGN!!!!!!!) Uporządnicki (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this time, the information stayed intact for almost a year and a half. Someone just "fixed" the figure again (an IP User), adding the explanation that the "faktor" was wrong. I put it back again. I don't know if the User will see it, but I did add a note to a (brand new) User Talk page. Uporządnicki (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please explain the "Gm" unit[edit]

Wonderfully informative article in plain, accessible language. My only request is, please explain the unit Gm, preferably in brackets in the text, else in a note. I assure you it is not common knowledge even among those of us who have read space articles their whole lives. Thanks wikipedia and wikipedians everywhere. Andysoh (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expected it to be Standard gravitational parameter, but that would be abbreviated GM, so the alternative is Gigametre. I'm not sure which is correct though. Schazjmd (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that in this article, Gm is clearly a simple distance. Standard gravitational parameter (I just looked it up) is clearly not a distance. Gigameters, (short) billions of meters. So, millions of kilometers. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a tooltip to the most visible occurrence of Gm, at Parker Solar Probe#List of events. See what you think. The other option would be to add a wikilink to Orders of magnitude (length)#1 gigametre. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wow! I didn't know you could do that! Uporządnicki (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One graph in the article uses Gm, while another uses Mkm. As you said, these units are equal. Kind of amusing. 67.8.238.247 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition in the "See also" paragraph[edit]

Dear all:

I'm not a registered user and, in fact, I do not know how to edit in the wikipedia (apart from my English being too poor). Therefore, I simply make here a suggestion in order to see if someone "more qualified (:))" does it.

In the paragraph "See also" I would add a link to the "Solar Orbiter" page of the wikipedia. In fact, in the "Solar Orbiter" page there is a link to the Solar Parker Probe in the "See also" paragraph.

Thank you very much!!

Best regards, Santiago Jordá — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.47.73 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the suggestion, however Solar Orbiter is linked in the body of this article so that's why it isn't in the "See also" section. Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, thank you for your reply and clarification!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.47.73 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Feel free to offer other suggestions for improvement! Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HeliOSPP[edit]

Hey Scienceadvocacy, regarding HeliOSPP - you can check official JHUAPL website, http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/The-Mission/index.php#Science-Objectives, where there is no mention of it. The only other source I've found is this presentation Stuart D. Bale. "Solar Wind Kinetic Physics and the NASA Parker Solar Probe mission" (PDF).. As it is not mentioned anywhere by NASA and as there is no paper about their results published after several years the PSP is en route, it seems that HeliOSPP was only planned and later abandoned. Artem.G (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more on it it actually is interesting: there are numerous references from UCLA on the observatory scientist of the mission and that role lasting until 2024. The author is present in almost all articles of PSP but maybe seeing as his role is: "Dr. Marco Velli, serves as the Observatory Scientist for the SPP Project, and carries out an
inter-disciplinary science investigation that focuses on the goals and objectives of the SPP
mission. He provides theoretical input and independent assessment of scientific performance
to the Science Working Group (SWG) and the SPP Project to maximize the scientific return
from the mission." - it might not be brought up as part of the NASA team on the webpage. Also in the official website there is clearly stated Instrument PI's and not PI's so that might be a way of removing any doubt. At this point i don't think we have any clear information on the state of that investigation so i won't edit again, just wanted to highlight this ambiguity.
These are some recent articles that cite this role as still existing even in the official page: http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/Mission-Memories/20210812_Shaping-a-Mission.php (this is published in 2021 and it does cite that role). Scienceadvocacy (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added that section, as i responded earlier there are plenty of references to this role still existing, new ones too in 2023. Scienceadvocacy (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reverting the addition, but can you show this "plenty"? I can't find anything else than the 2015 paper you've cited, and nothing from 2023. I wasn't able to find any paper published by the heliossp, maybe it was renamed or smth? Artem.G (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parker_Solar_Probe&oldid=1204537805"