Talk:Outer space

Reentry

Hey there again! How about using this image at the boundary section?

Atmospheric entry starts at the atmospheric boundary to space, an example for the progression of entry is illustrated in this typical Space Shuttle reentry profile.

Nsae Comp (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The image is only relevant for the third bullet. But that brings up a good point: is that really a boundary designation? The citation certainly doesn't demonstrate that. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that is what I was asking. Which citation? Nsae Comp (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I see, that citation, sorry I saw your note in the article about the citation too late. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I still think that reentry (and its graph) is the most practical illustration (not representation) of the boundary between air- and outer space, especially since it is not an universally defined destinct boundary and rather a rough boundary. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say your edits to the article leave much room for improvement, and leave it at that. The image you're suggesting wouldn't be an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Contextual information in caption

Re this edit and previous one by @Praemonitus. I believe the data in the caption provide important contextual information to interpret the image. I would advise to restore the information. cyclopia^speak! 08:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I completely disagree. The topic of this image is supposed to be about outer space, not the orbital altitude of the ISS. If the reader wants more information about the ISS, they can pursue the link. The additional text was just unnecssary baggage; the focus should be on the article topic. This satisfies all aspects of WP:CAPTION, while being succinct. The Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Knowing the altitude of the ISS helps to understand the context of the image. It helps to know that it looks like that from 400 km high and not, say, 2000 or 200. That something is unnecessary for you doesn't make it unnecessary for other readers. I know the altitute of the ISS already, but other people might not and to have it there might help. I don't see why purportedly make things more difficult for readers. --cyclopia^speak! 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's only necessary to know one of the scales, so I'll add that back in. Since it is only being used to view the distant horizon, the actual altitude of the ISS doesn't matter. It could just as easily be 200 or 2,000 km. That's a generally useless factoid in this context, unless you're planning to use trigonometry to figure out the distance to the horizon. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the context argument, though I get the text-length argument as well, so I would just argue for improved wording. Ill give it a try. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's why I think the comet image is superior:

• It provides a much clearer illustration of the airglow effect. By contrast the ISS image is muddy.
• It is a striking shot that immediately draws in the reader. The ISS shot is bland by comparison.
• It is a featured picture winner (WP:FP), so it has received extensive peer review.
• An image of a comet is no less about outer space than is the ISS. One could argue it is more so since comets have been around longer.

In short, if you want to replace it you should find something even better. Even the old chart of the atmospheric transition would be more engaging than that dim shot from the ISS. Praemonitus (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit note, the article isnt about comets, its about space, the comet is too much of the center of the image, I mind that much more than the slight blur. So I argue very strongly for the image where you can see the vast expanse of space from its boundary at Earth to interstellar space (the ISS is not the main focus of the image). Nsae Comp (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: I liked your shortening of the text (of the image without the comet). Nsae Comp (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

PPS: its about the end not the structure of the airglow that allows a visiualization of the boundary; and the space station provides something relateable in space (and in my opinion it is nicely in symmetry with the other elements in the image) Nsae Comp (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, it's not about space stations either. A comet is mostly space; a space station isn't. If you want a different image of outer space, then I would suggest either a well-received image of a galactic cluster (to show the expanse of intergalactic space) or a deep field image (to show the depth of mean free path through space). Praemonitus (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I said: the space station is NOT the focus of the image: the boundary/airglow and the field of stars are and thats exactly portraing the expanse of space. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand, I'm just disagreeing. The space station is a primary focus of the image, or it would have been truncated. I don't even find the station to be useful for measuring scale. The comet image includes a stary background, a better view of the airglow, and a more impressive panorama. The orientation is also better for a human viewer to visualize altitude. It's simply a superior image. Praemonitus (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh my, well we represent two opposing opinions, so I hope someone would give a third opinion (e.g. @Cyclopia:) Nsae Comp (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Since we can't seem to reach a consensus on such an obvious decision, I'm trying a different approach. A deep field image provides a clear inference that space is empty. Praemonitus (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

A deep field image shows that space features galaxies all over. I dont see the emptyness in that, quite the contrary, space is an expanse, not a void (which is not the same as a vacuum). The tricky part for me is how to portrait the expanse without portraing just a particular slice. So showing the boundary and the vastness, plus a habitat in it makes it relateable and gives a first impression of scale. For me images inform and compliment the text. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: I do find this latest image much better than the comet one. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

With the changed image description and keeping the discussed image in the body I compromise, mainly because it is an image that resembles what presumably readers have in their minds when thinking of space. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back late, but I agree the latest image is better than the comet and other preceding ones.cyclopia^speak! 09:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like we have a consensus then. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Definition of "Outer space"

Discussion

I slightly tweaked the lead section of the article. I looked in at least six different reference works including four dictionaries and two encyclopedias, and nobody defined outer space as excluding the atmospheres of other planets. So I rewrote the lead of the article to reflect the same definition that I found everywhere, namely that outer space is that space which lies beyond Earth's atmosphere.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Your revision amounted to "Space is space", a circular definition. The original was better. For example, the New World Encyclopedia says,"Outer space (often called space) consists of the relatively empty regions of the universe outside the atmospheres of celestial bodies." There isn't a consensus legal definition, but the current one seems sufficiently clear. Praemonitus (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Praemonitus,
(@Praemonitus:)

Yes, Outer space is definitely Outer space. The seemingly novel interpretation that you have shown me from the New World Encyclopedia appears to me to be a minority opinion of a very small group of people. Also, you haven't cited the source of this information. "Flat Earth Theory" may be listed in some off-brand encyclopedia site too. I have made the same mistake many times in my edits of Wikipedia, of thinking I have found a reliable source when after another editor asked me about it, I then found that the source was not as reliable as I had first thought.

Could you somehow please show me that this is a majority opinion? By doing a simple Google search on the definition of outer space and reading the first six definitions that pop up, all of those six definitions were consistent with the one I used and none of them in anyway appeared to reflect the views of the New World Encyclopedia where say the "atmosphere of Mars at Mars's surface" would not be considered as a part of outer space. Please take a look at this link and see what I mean:

Google Search Results.

Oh I forgot to mention the Wikipedia result which did happen to match what you were saying, but that was the only one. Please help me here. Yes Encyclopedias are usually good reference sources, but they still need to be compared to other sources. Do you still think that the views of the New World Encyclopedia are the majority view?
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Well my point is that your statement leaves "space" undefined. A dictionary definition is, "a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied." Ergo, space can be taken as an unoccupied area or expanse. Yes? I prefer the latter term as it is more suggestive of great distances. It follows then that space is an (empty) expanse that lies between non-Earthly bodies and their atmosphere. The point about Mars' atmosphere seems like a trivial nit, considering how vast the cosmos is compared to that planet. But if we wanted to drill down on that, on Earth the Kármán line is used to define the start of space based in terms of atmospheric powered flight, something that has been demonstrated on Mars. Hence, there's an argument to be made that the surface of Mars is not outer space. In that case we need a reliable source that says otherwise. Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is a dictionary of "Space." But how do all of the major dictionary's define "Outer Space?" I can see the possibility that if we ever might find another planet that doesn't require a space suit to survive in, then maybe people might call that something like an "Earth-like atmosphere," and not "outer space," but that is a long ways off, and unlikely in our own lifetimes. I believe that may be why all of the major dictionaries define "Outer Space" as simply that which lies beyond Earth's atmosphere." Aren't we supposed to generally go with "majority views" in WP?
Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Circling back once again. A dictionary says outer space is a type of space. Space has multiple meanings, so the reader then flips to the definition of space to find out what that means in particular. Both parts are necessary to properly define outer space. For example, Merriam-Webster states, "The meaning of OUTER SPACE is space immediately outside the earth's atmosphere". Again, what is space? The current first sentence is both comprehensive and correct; I see no reason to change it. It's been reviewed and massaged many times by many readers. I consider it a consensus as such. Praemonitus (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So you believe that Wikipedia should disagree with the common wisdom of most dictionaries in how it defines "Outer Space," and that our "disagreement" with the common wisdom of most dictionaries should not be supported by any cite? (I still haven't seen a single cite in the article supporting your argument here.)
Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: Thank you for the stimulating conversation thus far. Retiring for the evening now. (To be continued.) Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The statement properly consolidates the typical dictionary definition of "outer space" with the applicable definition of "space". There is no conflict in my mind. Anyway, no I don't find this particularly stimulating; merely tedious and repetitive. Praemonitus (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't answered any of my questions here. I find your unwillingness to edit a view into WP that is not supported by any major dictionaries, and to write such a view without being able to provide any supporting citE, and in fact to delete the common dictionary view that was cited, and to replace it with your own uncited material, to be a bit "mysterious" myself. Please either support your recent deletions of this with a cite of a major work, or else let me put it back. Goodnight my friend.

Thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Merriam-webster:

Outer space -- "space immediately outside the earth's atmosphere"

Space -- "physical space independent of what occupies it"

Put those together and you get: "physical space independent of what occupies it, immediately outside the earth's atmosphere".

Per Wictionary: "Any region of space beyond limits determined with reference to boundaries of a celestial system or body, especially the region of space immediately beyond Earth's atmosphere; sometimes, space beyond Earth's solar system."

Sure, the term gets used for multiple purposes, and there is no actual legal definition of "outer space". But maybe that's a good thing. The current statement is what is discussed by the article. Praemonitus (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that it used to say, "Outer space, commonly shortened to space, is the expanse that exists beyond Earth and its atmosphere and between celestial bodies." From that it was shortened to its present form. Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. When I was writing last night I should've been clearer. Could you please put your cites into the article itself? The posting of uncited views in an article sometimes looks to me as if it might be opinion stated as fact.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm thinking now that it may make sense (as a compromise) to flip the statement back to that older form, then add a note referencing the Merriam-Webster definitions to add it some weight. Would that make sense? The current form is just a semi-consolidated version, so the old one is still valid. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like it would probably work. Please feel free to redo it as you are suggesting and I'll probably finally "shut my yap."
Thank you my friend,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead sentence has been reverted, with some slight massaging of the text, and cited. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Supporting your edit

Hi again Praemonitus,
(@Praemonitus:)
Thank you for the very helpful edit. Without changing your edit, I added what I consider to be supporting material. I'm hoping you might agree with the intentions of my edit. If you could find a reliable cite that defines other "celestial bodies with atmospheres" as not a part of outer-space, and then if you could please cite this source in the lead, then of course I would be happy if you reverted my last edit. Otherwise I'm hoping that you might please not revert it?
Thank you kindly my friend,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should avoid the topic because it isn't well defined outside of the Earth, and seems to me to be drifting into WP:OR. For now we should just leave it vague. Praemonitus (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I just a reread the way you defined it, and you're right. You reworded it in a sort of a "vague" way that I finally accept.
Thank you my friend,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi again Praemonitus,
I just put a very minor "tweak" on the second sentence of the lead, but if you want to revert my edit, that's OK with me.
Thanks,
Lighthumormonger (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It was just duplicating text from the first sentence. Praemonitus (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed vs delete.

@Praemonitus @Nsae Comp This sentence was recently added without a source then marked as citation needed:

• Cosmic radiation in low Earth orbit is reduced due to being inside of the Van Allen belt, the lowest radiation belt of Earth's shielding magnetosphere.

I think its better to delete this sentence if sources cannot be added. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that new additions should be properly sourced. In this case it seemed like the wording is redundant with what follows, so I'm not sure it was an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry the use of "inside" was wrong, I meant "below" the inner V.A. belt, as of course the V.A. belt has high radiation. Sorry for that. But I dont see a problem with the paragraph as a whole. Citation about low Earth orbit and its bordering of the V.A. belt isnt a problem, e.g.:. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually no, I don't think it does properly cite the statement. At least not the part I can access. All it says is that the Van Allen belt has a higher level of radiation, which can impact satellite safety. Praemonitus (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What does it not state? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Same is true for the para you took out: none is controversial and it is only a basic introducing statement, finding a reference shouldnt be a problem as far as I can see:

Living in outer space is shaped by the characteristic environment of outer space, particularly its microgravity (producing weightlessness) and its near perfect vacuum (supplying few and producing unhindered exposure to radiation and material from far away). Radiation is prevalent in outer space particularly beyond shielding magnetospheres, being one of the main challenges of sustained human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit.

Nsae Comp (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References