Talk:List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System

message: As the rocket boosters on most of these probes were always expected to head out into the wide black yonder, did they mark them in any way to make them more interesting to our alien neighbours ? :)
I mean, it presumably would have been fairly easy to engrave copies of the Pioneer plaques, or a host of other tidbits, onto the structures of these things. But did they ? The Yeti (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Parts like that are mass-produced by contractors to exact specifications, any change would entail separate testing and certification and it's basically handled by a separate organization from the people who design and make the payload. The payload would be sent to be launched by the people who design and built it and until it's in orbit and they make radio contact they have little to no connection with it, the people responsible for the rocket launch will handle everything connected to that. This is my take on the situation as an observer, I have no first-hand experience. --DelftUser (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Markings on escaping final solid fuel motors 

message: "Booster" as used here does not conform to the modern use of the term as we define it on our page Booster (rocketry). The booster is the first stage of a multistage rocket, not the last upper stage. Some people at the beginning of the Space Race (late 1950s and early 1960s) would sometimes call launch vehicles "boosters", but this was based on lack of technical knowledge, and sounds even more ignorant and unprofessional today. The terminology needs to be changed. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that a Space.com cited source calls it a "booster" proves nothing, other than that journalists don't know everything. The confusion caused by this use of the word was manifest by the fact that somebody added an incorrect photo of the Atlas V booster (acutally a first-stage booster), which fell into the ocean and is not the upper stage which follows the New Horizons probe. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect use of "booster" 

message: V2 didn't have a destination listed like the other 4 so I copied it from the Voyager 2 page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:102D:7000:3960:E3B9:25B3:C512 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voyager 2 destination 

message: On the wikitable of escaping objects, I would really like to see the escape velocities (per heliocentric distance) in a separate column for direct comparison to each object's actual current velocity, perhaps for the next time the table is updated.  However, the Heavens-Above and JPL sources apparently don't provide this additional detail.  DWIII (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We can already calculate these from distances listed. Calculations are allowed as long as you do not invent a new formula/algorithm. Erkin Alp Güney 18:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance and speed from the Sun status table: Can we include escape velocities? 

message: Which two spacecraft are the most spread-out human-made objects ever created?  It doesn't say on the page...--27 is my favorite number.  You can ask me why here. 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does; you can answer your own question if you learn what an AU is, and then look at the List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System#Distance and speed from the Sun table. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Most Widespread Human-made Objects 

message: Article currently describes the final Star solid fuel motors as upper or third stages of the launch rocket but this not how they are procured or built. The final solid fuel kick motors are formally Propulsion Modules of the spacecraft rather than final stages of the launcher. I haven't changed the wording yet in case, or so, people can find sources on this issue, or comment here. - Rod57 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper stages of launcher vs propulsion modules of the spacecraft 

message: Since we know the trajectories of the probes leaving the solar system, would it be possible for someone to make some sort of 3d interactive model of each of their escape paths, so as to provide a better understanding of how each of the probes is leaving the solar system relative to one another? Smoltran (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible value in a rotatable 3d model of escaping probes. 

message: I came here to add something on the Ulysses probe, and see someone added some stuff already. Unfortunately they did not add any refs, so it was tagged uncited. I added a ref, but this only partially supports the text that was added. Where the rest of the details come from I cannot Google find.
The ref I added is <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-solar-idINTRE5600A220090701> from Reuters. I did also find a forum page <http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=dd67c8dfbcb4a59262ae9cab0ad48f3e&showtopic=1468&st=30&p=109827> but forums don't count on wikipedia.
Further I received a weekly New Scientist email 'Launchpad' (3rd Sept 2021) which also mentions Ulysses leaving the solar system (but the reporter didn't add any refs in the article). (Which is why I came here in the first place.)
I also googled found different dates for the 2098 encounter - on 4th, 5th & 7th November.
So - Ulysses seems a likely, but not certain, candidate to leave. Given Ulysses is turned off and no longer has a power source, I guess we'll never know.
: I should add that in nearly 80 years time, who knows how many other probes (or even humans) will be orbiting Jupiter. If anyone's still remembering it, they could re-aquire Ulysses (eg photographically or radar) and track it.
Finally, what happened to the final stage booster rocket motor that originally launched Ulsysses to Jupiter ? I presume it also encounted Jupiter and then slungshot somewhere. Most likely into heliocentric orbit, but there a slight possibility depending on the angle of its encounter (or even re-encounter if it also orbited like Ulysses did) that it too is now off into the wide black yonder. The Yeti (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulysses 

message: This edit caught my eye. Hmmm...
To minimize manual updates of the table, it seems to me that it might be useful to partially automate this, similarly to Template:Poptoday 1. Something like:
That should require only very occasional tweaks to the velocity in 1000mi/h parameter.
See here for current velocities, which should have remained pretty constant since reaching some distance from the solar system on a base date to be chosen.
I've probably screwed up some detail there, but the idea ought to be clear; just airing an idea in case someone here is motivated to implement it. (this has been tweaked a couple of times) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with not having to manually update the distance. I made a similar topic on Talk:Voyager 1 about 2 weeks ago. – The Grid (talk)  19:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed and distance from the Sun 

message: Is there no better alt img for it? Why use complex words like annular to describe simple things? 2601:446:4300:FE90:B908:F57E:FFDB:110D (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image showing the trajectories is confusing. 

message: : In my opinion it is incorrect to have  as the description of this page. This page is discussing about list of such objects, and description such as  or similar will be more descriptive. What do you think? Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no short description, that's why I added it. I don't know why short description should be "None in list articles. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is usually "none" if the title can describe the content properly. In my opinion, the title has described the content clearly enough, thus no description should be needed. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the short description template should be on the list article if no short description is there. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SDNONE. BilCat (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of this page 

message: I recently edited the article about List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System and using http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1511746688216_hyperbolic.html, I calculated that the New Horizons spacecraft will overtake Pioneer 10 in 2314, not in 2187. Also, I calculated that New Horizons spacecraft will overtake Pioneer 11 in 2143, not 2113. Will be this correct or not? Revert my edit on the article about List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System if this is incorrect calculation or not needed. 88.21.148.148 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the calculation was correct. 80.134.150.173 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Horizons spacecraft will overtake Pioneer 11 in 2143, not 2113, and will overtake Pioneer 10 in 2314, not 2187