Talk:Exploration of dwarf planets

== Feedback from New Page Review process ==

Untitled

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Great (and interesting) article, congrats!

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Should this article be nominated for a good article

It does follow all of the rules under the 6 criteria of a good article. Bennett1203 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you can move "Proposed probes" to its own section, and probably rename to "Proposed and undeveloped probes"; they all are just mission concepts, and no agency have plans for such mission in the near future. It should also include Mariner Mark II and Pluto Kuiper Express for Pluto, and Calathus Mission and Ceres Polar Lander for Ceres. New Horizons 2 may also deserve a mention. Artem.G (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point Bennett1203 (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely on the way there, but not just yet unfortunately - there are still some unsourced paragraphs and sourcing issues, and the lead is too short compared to the article size to be a good summary. Also, not sure if the "Proposed probes" section complies with MOS:LISTS. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Orbital Mechanics

This page uses the phrase "long distances" frequently. The difficulty in spaceflight is not travelling long distances. The difficulty is effecting the velocity changes (delta-v) to hit the right trajectory. After separation from the rocket that launches them, most probes make very minimal changes to their course. Fuels that are stable for years (hypergolics, noble gases for ion thrusters) are generally inefficient (low specific impulse), so unless one is doing orbital capture, they are only there for station-keeping.

To do orbital capture at a TNO, the probe would have to pass Earth escape velocity, and then make a Hohmann transfer to the TNO. There, it would have to bleed that speed almost completely for orbital capture, which would require a lot of fuel.

Also, using anything but radioisotope thermal generators past the orbit of Jupiter is generally impossible. There's no "saving energy" with those—they're producing energy whether the spacecraft is on or off.

Altogether, I like the article, but I think a physicist or astronomer should probably give it a look and recommend better wordings.

Phaesphoria (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed feedback on the article about exploring dwarf planets. Your points are well-taken and highlight several critical aspects of spaceflight that warrant further clarification.

1. Challenge of Spaceflight:

• You are correct that the primary challenge in spaceflight is not merely covering long distances but making the necessary velocity changes (delta-v) to achieve the correct trajectory. The original article could benefit from emphasizing this point more clearly. While the article mentions the need for substantial fuel reserves and trajectory adjustments, it should stress that achieving and fine-tuning these trajectories require precise velocity changes, which are indeed the primary challenges.

2. Minimal Course Adjustments Post-Launch:

• After separation from the launch vehicle, most probes make minimal course adjustments, as their initial launch conditions largely determine their trajectory. The article’s reference to course corrections and orbital insertions acknowledges this but could be more specific about the limited nature of these adjustments. This additional detail would provide a more accurate picture of the mission dynamics.

3. Inefficiency of Stable Fuels:

• Your point about the inefficiency of stable fuels like hypergolics and noble gases is well-founded. These fuels are primarily used for station-keeping rather than major course changes due to their low specific impulse. The article’s mention of fuel reserves should include this distinction, clarifying the roles and efficiency of different types of fuels used in space missions.

4. Orbital Capture at TNOs:

• Capturing into orbit around Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) indeed requires substantial deceleration, necessitating a significant amount of fuel. The article acknowledges the need for substantial fuel reserves but could improve by detailing the specific requirements for deceleration and the process involved in achieving orbital capture around distant objects like TNOs.

5. Power Sources Beyond Jupiter:

• Using anything other than radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) beyond Jupiter is impractical due to the weak solar flux at such distances. The original article doesn’t contradict this but would benefit from explicitly mentioning the limitation of solar power and the reliance on RTGs for deep-space missions. RTGs provide continuous power, which is crucial for maintaining operations far from the Sun.

The original article correctly highlights several important aspects, such as fuel conservation methods, spacecraft hibernation, gravity assists, and the role of high-gain antennas. These points are valid and essential for understanding the complexities of space missions. However, your feedback provides a necessary layer of technical detail that can enhance the article’s accuracy and comprehensiveness.

Integrating your insights will create a more precise and detailed description of the challenges and strategies involved in spaceflight, particularly when targeting distant celestial bodies like dwarf planets. Thank you for contributing to the accuracy and clarity of this discussion. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, we would need to find reliable sources that backup your accusations. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)