Talk:Parker Solar Probe

Speed of probe vs. speed of light, revisited

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)

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)

please explain the "Gm" unit

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hey, wow! I didn't know you could do that! Uporządnicki (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Addition in the "See also" paragraph

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)

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)

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)

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

HeliOSPP

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)

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)

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)

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)

What is the white coating on the sun side of the heat shield

Some diagrams say "white ceramic coating" (rather vague), NASA website says it is a spray on reflective coating. Would be nice to find a source that says what materials (specific oxides ?), and roughly how thick. - Rod57 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)