Talk:Magnetosphere of Jupiter

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Magnetosphere of Jupiter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
From Waves (Juno): 
From Heliosphere: Cole, Steve. "NASA Satellite Provides First View of the Solar System's Tail" NASA News Release 12-211, July 10, 2013
From Hydrogen peroxide: 
From Magnetometer (Juno): Juno Magnetometer Observations in the Earth's Magnetosphere
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Magnetosphere of Jupiter]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Magnetosphere 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225131107/http://icymoons.com/europaclass/Cooper_gllsat_irrad.pdf to http://icymoons.com/europaclass/Cooper_gllsat_irrad.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719204111/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/11661/1/02-0220.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/11661/1/02-0220.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently claims:
* 
But the only relevant statements that the cited source provides on pp. 3–4 are:
* 
From that, I can see no support for the presence of each of S+, O+, S2+ and O2+; is that WP:SYNTH?. Also, the source seems to imply that solar ultraviolet radiation is a negligible mechanism for the ionisation; in fact the principal agent seems to be high velocity electrons. I think that this section of our article needs to be changed to reflect the source cited, or additional sources should be provided to support the text as it stands. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasma originating from Io 

message: A colleague complained to me over dinner (we're at the Magnetosphere of the Outer Planets conference) about the Wikipedia article on Jupiter's magnetosphere. He felt that it reads as if it were written by people from a particular research group, whose interpretation isn't widely agreed on by the community. Looking over the article, it looks like he was right about the Dynamics section. It's not wrong, but it's written with a spin which favors a particular interpretation and theory. Would anyone mind if I heavily rewrite it to be more balanced? Fcrary (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising the Dynamics section 

message: I have rolled back the equatorial field strength to the 4.2 Gauss figure from the Khurana chapter in the Jupiter book by Bagenal, et al. The 7.76 G figure recorded by Juno at perijove was not an equatorial figure, since Juno's perijove is not equatorial. Figure 2 in Connerney 2018 is a surface map of the equatorial field strength, and the equator averages out to 4 Gauss with a sharp peak at low northerly latitudes. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly much better than 7.76. But isn't four significant figures a bit much? I'd be more comfortable trimming 4.264 to approximately 4.2 or 4.3. Fcrary (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tracked down Jack Connerney's post-Juno model value (4.170 G) and inserted it with a reference. Four sig figs is still overkill IMO, but at least now it has a firmer basis. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be fine. I just run Jack's JRM09 model for zero degrees latitude and one value per degree of longitude (geographic). I got 4.4 +- 1.7, with 7.3 as the maximum. But I suspect I'd be accused of independent research if I put that in the article. 4.17 is fine with me. It's about right and well within the range seen at different latitudes. Fcrary (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equatorial field strength 

message: The radiation environment near Jupiter is of particular importance to visiting spacecraft, as they must be designed to handle it. Citing a source for the article's current description, "...producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger," would be useful in this article and elsewhere, e.g. the main Jupiter article and the articles for the various visiting spacecraft. Thanks! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation environment near Jupiter 

message: Kind of similar to the above section (and this would be relevant to stick in other articles), but I think the current "Interaction with rings and moons" is a little too...  blase, and burying the lede.  Or worse, portraying the Magnetosphere as no big deal. See this paragraph:
:The icy Galilean moons, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, all generate induced magnetic moments in response to changes in Jupiter's magnetic field. These varying magnetic moments create dipole magnetic fields around them, which act to compensate for changes in the ambient field. The induction is thought to take place in subsurface layers of salty water, which are likely to exist in all of Jupiter's large icy moons. These underground oceans can potentially harbor life, and evidence for their presence was one of the most important discoveries made in the 1990s by spacecraft.
A casual reader might think that the magnetic moments are somehow connected to the hypothetical life in salty water, and thus the radiation is helping out?  Or at least not a problem for life.  But this isn't the Fallout video games.  My understanding is that any sci-fi image of astronauts on Europa or Io is a lie and they're already super dead from radiation.  Callisto is safe-ish but OSHA is unhappy if you somehow spend years on end there.  I think this should be included in the article, or at least the above paragraph rephrased to make more clear that the radiation is more likely a threat to this hypothetical underground oceanic life.  SnowFire (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moons section a little too optimistic?