Talk:Mars aircraft

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Astronomy: Mars / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mars task force.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mars aircraft. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense about pressure

The following sentence makes no actual sense. I looked in the citation, and the statement is not in the source given:

"Mars air, consisting mostly of CO2 gas, is over 50% denser than Earth air adjusted to equal pressure." Cited source: "Oliver Morton – MarsAir How to build the first extraterrestrial airplane. – NASA Quest". Archived from the original on 2011-12-18. Retrieved 2012-05-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Scanning the source page (NASA Quest) for "dens", nothing is said about "over 50% denser" or "adjusted to equal pressure". What he actually says: "At any given pressure, carbon dioxide is denser than the air on Earth, which would increase a wing's lift."
The phrase "adjusted to equal pressure" makes no physical sense. Does that mean at the same pressure?

Carbon dioxide has a density of 1.98 kg/m3 at Earth standard temperature and pressure. The density of air at sea level is "about 1.2 kg/m3". Therefore, CO2 is 1.65 times denser than air. The problem is, Mars atmospheric pressure never gets anywhere near Earth's sea level pressure. The density advantage of CO2 is actually a bit technically complicated; lift is dependent on dynamic pressure, which in turn is dependent on atmospheric density and velocity squared.

We have a ^{[failed verification]} because the citation doesn't say what the article says. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mars aircraft → Extraterrestrial aircraft – Proposing a scope change to include other extraterrestrial aircraft like Dragonfly (spacecraft), with its primary category being Category:Extraterrestrial aircraft. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make more sense to keep this page about Mars aircraft and create a separate one for the broader scope? I don't have too much knowledge in this area so it's a genuine question.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's a pretty good stand-alone topic now and has a lot of material to work with, but maybe revisit once Dragonfly successfully launches and deploys. And if the U.S. keeps "leaking" and announcing in a hint-hint nudge-nudge way about their UFO information, Wikipedia may have to save the proposed title for that topic (interesting and a maybe-a-little more than a little surprising that nobody's ever created it and redirected it to the UFO page). Besides, with Bradbury in mind, Mars. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DragonFly is not the only aircraft that will fly towards the celestial body other than Earth and Mars. There are other aircraft that will do or once upon a time did so: HAVOC airship, atmospheric probes of Pioneer 13, AVIATR, SMARA, atmospheric probes of Vega, Venus Atmospheric Maneuverable Platform, etc. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I see no value in merging, and the length of this article is too long that it couldn't be merged, along with other extraterrestrial aircraft. The term "extraterrestial" is also ~~a little~~ vague, considering it could be interpreted as "aircraft by extraterrestrial life." If the term "aircraft" also refer to probes such as Voyager 1 (in which from the photos, it seems like it), then that would further strengthen my opposition. Gerald WL 15:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about merging, it is about renaming. Extraterrestrial aircraft are designed to fly in the atmosphere of extraterrestrial bodies, while spacecraft are designed to fly in vacuum. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Just create a new article about extraterrestrial aircraft rather than hijack and clutter up an existing one. Category:Extraterrestrial aircraft suggests there are more than enough examples of non-Martian extraterrestrial aircraft to make a good start, with just summary-style section on Mars that links to this article. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Aerobot actually has quite a lot about extraterrestrial aircraft that could be mined or moved to a new article. And it's actually a better candidate for hijacking than this article. I've never even heard the term "aerobot" which seems like a neologism anyway. Perhaps it's used a lot in space exploration publications, but its been years.since I read those on a regular basis. The title makes it seem like its emphasis should be on robotics and autonomy, but it's more about the aircraft types and uses. - BilCat (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.