Talk:X-ray astronomy

message: Fixed a broken link, added Swift and Swift XRT link Rob 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Swift & broken link

message: When I clicked on the link about HIREGS (http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/balloon/) it was broken. I navigated to the front page of the website and found the link to it and it was gone. Therefore I have made the link link to an archived version of a page. It can be found here. Hope I helped! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Psychless (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: "x-ray telescope" redirects here but there was no information on the design of x-ray telescopes to show what angular resolution or imaging capabilities they have or can have. I've linked to a few docs until someone can do a proper job. Rod57 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  x-ray telescope technology 

message: A great deal of useful information has been added in the past day or two by Marshallsumter (talk), for which I am very grateful and pleased.  Some of it raises questions in my mind, however, about organization—the enumeration of missions, experiments, and instruments, versus exposition of astronomy issues.  I have tried to add some information about missions I have been particularly familiar with, such as OSO 7, HEAO 1 (A4), HEAO 3 (C1), and CGRO.  The articles on the Orbiting  Solar Observatory series is particularly sparse, as each one deserves its own short article, plus an article about the overall NASA OSO program.  The articles I have worked on are unbalanced in that instruments and spacecraft I know little about are woefully shortchanged.  Some of the new material here by Marshallsumter could be used to start stubs for the other OSO's and fill in instrumental detail.  Another issue is that the key science results of individual instruments have been shortchanged in the mission and instrument discussions, and it seems to me that that kind of material ought to find a place here, as well as be mentioned under the hardware, missions, and techniques articles.  I guess I think the amount of material potentially involved is so large that many editors must necessarily be involved, adding material they know about (and can reference, I hope, of course) and then when enough material has been collected to approach something comprehensive, we are likely to want to undertake a really large-scale re-organization of the whole subject, into articles covering missions, articles on specific objects (eg, the Crab Nebula and Cygnus X-1), articles on experiments and instruments, articles on instrumental techiques, and finally and article trying to tie what all these different strands have taught us about astronomy and the universe, the sort of thing and senior college student thinking of specializing in the subject might find useful.  This will take a while I think!  But a worthy goal nonetheless, and something only Wikipedia can possibly attempt.  Wwheaton (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have incorporated Marshallsumter's material on OSO 3 into a separate article for that mission.  It still lacks anything about the solar instruments, unfortunately.  It also needs a reference to Dan Schwarz's thesis on the cosmic X-ray background, which I will try to add asap, as I have a copy somewhere. Wwheaton (talk)
I agree with pretty much every subject Wwheaton has touched on. I have the same goals. My next contribution probably will deal with the various catalogs of X-ray objects and possibly the individual contributions by each effort though that will be Herculean to accomplish right away. I also agree regarding making this subject attractive enough that advanced undergrads will think about a career in X-ray astronomy or related area. I have no objections to parsing out info to various connected articles. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Great.  Let's proceed along this path as fast as we are able (I can only devote a little time now and then) and hope to attract other editors over time.  Then the organizational issues and how best to deal with them should become more obvious as material accumulates.  Wwheaton (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material & organization 

message: I've been thinking about re-organizing the material for this article into more of a newspaper style as follows:
# Astronomical sources of X-rays
# Exotic X-ray sources
# X-ray dark stars
# Single X-ray stars
# Major questions in X-ray astronomy
# Theoretical X-ray astronomy
# X-ray observation
# X-ray telescopes/mirrors
# X-ray detectors
# Stellar X-ray astronomy
# Analytical X-ray astronomy
# Explorational X-ray astronomy
# Forthcoming X-ray observatory satellites
# History of X-ray astronomy
# Amateur X-ray astronomy
While I have reasons for each in this order, I'd like some feedback before actually re-arranging everything. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself wondering if there should be something on the physics of X-ray interactions with matter, both emission and absorption.  But then I think it's getting awfully long for Wikipedia's preferences.  I wonder if it could be split up into a smaller number of major sections, each with a lead-style summary, and a link out to a separate article on the section topic?  It really is a huge field....  Wwheaton (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: We've gone back and forth on how to link this. The term "modulation collimator" has a significance far beyond its constituents, which I think should be linked in a proper article on the subject. There is a rich history here, starting with the identification of Sco X-1 (which, incidentally, was neither at the Galactic Center nor very closely related to what Giacconi got the Nobel Prize for, as earlier versions suggested). It seems that people who understand RMCs, URAs, and the like, are not paying enough attention to the Wikipedia!
This article is (a) too big, and (b) too undiscriminating in its overview. I haven't had time to go through it in detail but noticed many things that need to get improved. One of these things near the top was "modulation collimator" so I suggest that Marshallsumter accept my improvement there. Another thing I noticed was NiXT - if one is going to mention that, one needs to mention Art Walker's work, which basically came first.
--Hugh Hudson (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugh, I've moved your remarks to the end of the page.  (Ordinarily we don't mess with other editor's comments, but this is an exception to that tradition.) Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modulation collimator 

message: From looking through the list of Wikipedia Feature Articles, I was struck by two facts: (1) the only article about a science to be a FA is Cryptography and (2) Warfare has more FAs than any other area. Splitting off some more sections and including let's say the best from each section in X-ray astronomy with a flowing connectivity of prose will help readability but I've always been fuzzy on the "quality" thing once good grammar has been achieved and readability reached. So, unless there are some major objections I believe we have improved the article quite a bit and of course there's always room for more, I'm going to remove the Cleanup box. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask for a WP:GAN, independent reviewers will tell you the various problems with the article. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality standard cleanup

message: I did the splitting and merging to help organize the material.  If Marshallsumter or some other editor wants to add some of that material back into the main article there is nothing to prevent it. As Marshallsumter pointed out the "Sun" article is 100K and I noticed that "Electron" is 100k. Both of these articles have achieved FA status, so I guess 100K is no major shortcoming. When adding some of the material back in the main article I reccomend following the merge Guidelines at the Help: merge page. I find the Quick reference section the most effective for me at Help:Merge#Quick_reference. Also, in this case I don't see a need for a merger proposal beforehand, imho. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC
I've created the article Balloons for X-ray astronomy initially expecting it to be a stub. However, the subject even on Wikipedia is larger than I thought. The sections here that regard balloons have been included. I was wondering if we want to delete any of the balloon portions of this article or keep them. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, when merging material into a new or already existing article, all that is needed is a short summary in the orginal article and a link to the new article. For example, in this case, all that is needed is a short summary about "Balloons for X-ray astronomy."  I see that you already have a link to the new article. I would go ahead and merge the other two or three items from this article into that one. But that is just my opinion. Maybe you have a good reason for keeping those two or three related sections in this article instead of the other one. So, it's up to you. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting and merging

message: In the first sentence it states that there are shock waves going out from the star at supersonic speeds.  This needs to be clarified and/or corrected because sound cannot travel through a vacuum, hence everything moving is at supersonic speeds in space.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.81.84 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eta Carinae

message: In a merge discussion for Neupert effect to the X-ray page it has been proposed to merge Neupert Effect to the X-ray astronomy page... Editors of this page are invited to comment there (Talk:X-ray#Neupert_effect_merge_discussion) please... GremlinSA 09:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neupert effect]] article merge discussion.. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on X-ray astronomy. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080511111524/http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/news/story83.html to http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/news/story83.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on X-ray astronomy. 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/20100408082333/http://www.astronautix.com/chrono/19491.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/chrono/19491.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811230835/http://astronomy.sci.ege.edu.tr/~rpekunlu/GBDG/papers/XRayfromStellarCoronae.pdf to http://astronomy.sci.ege.edu.tr/~rpekunlu/GBDG/papers/XRayfromStellarCoronae.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123089260
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) 06:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello out there!  I ended up on this page thanks to my work on Solrad.  There's a lot of great info on this page, but it's once again gotten a bit unwieldy.  Moreover, the heading I encountered wasn't very accessible, not discussing the *why* we thought X-ray sources might exist and went looking for them.  Finally, the Giacconi digression in the second paragraph seemed misplaced.
I've (hopefully) patched up the beginning a bit, and I moved the Giacconi verbiage to the Sounding Rockets section, the only other place he is mentioned, along with adding some reference links to cover bases.
The article could really use a run through with a nice opening few paragraphs on the science of it and then maybe just a notable flights list and a link to a more comprehensive page?  I don't know.  I'm new here and in over my head. :)
Anyway, I hope you like what I've done with the page.  Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up