Talk:Voyager 2/Archive 1

Neptune Discoveries?
The Uranus section mentions rings and moons imaged by Voyager 2 around Uranus, but the Neptune section does not mention any rings or moons, even though Voyager 2 discovered several around Neptune. I was wondereeeeeeeeeeing, is there a specific reason for this, or is it just an oversight? If it's a simple oversight, I can add that information in. Katzs 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek 5?
I'd have to watch the awful movie again to make sure, but isn't the probe shot by the Klingons in Star Trek V actually Pioneer 10 or 11? I thought I spotted those two finned RTGs.
 * You're right, it's one of the Pioneers: there's a shot of the plaque. Was there any visual differences between the two? Seems like I heard that P11 had a second boom of some sort. CFLeon 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no difference other than on the molecular scale, and the chosen trajectories, between the outer planetary Pioneers. --Chr.K. 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Voyager 2 trajectory
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1977-076A-traj.html not as parameters but direct distances to the sun/the planets visited, in case anyone is interested just because I added a similar link to Talk:Voyager 1 and found it hard to find --Deelkar (talk) 05:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mariner 12?
I seem to recall seeing somewhere that Voyager 2 was initially designated Mariner 11 and Voyager 1 was Mariner 12. It may have been from an article in Science around the time of the launches (1977).--Clemmentine 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The only corroborating evidence is this PowerPoint presentation: http://www.it.lth.se/Kodningsteknik/lectures/ECCintro.pdf which lists the Mariners in order of launch dates, which does imply Voyager 2 = Mariner 11 (launched in August) and Voyager 1 = Mariner 12 (launched in September).
 * On the other hand, all other mentions Google finds seem to be taken from Wikipedia, so the evidence is weak in either direction. Gatland's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology does not say.
 * Interestingly, Viking was originally called Voyager, at which time Voyager was called Grand Tour.
 * According to http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/20th_far_voyagers.html, Voyager 1 and 2 were also called "Mariner Jupiter/Saturn A" and "B", respectively, which seems to map to Mariner 11 and 12 better. Urhixidur 05:34, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Alignments?
Every 175 years or every 200 is not going to make much difference. The synodic periods of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune with respect to Jupiter are 19.88, 13.82 and 12.79 years, respectively. They don't factor well into each other. Those of Uranus and Neptune with respect to Saturn are 45.33 and 35.86 years, and that of Neptune with respect to Uranus is 171.54 years.

If you line up the giant planets (which never happens) and wait 171.531 years, they'll line up again within 40° or so of each other (Saturn would be ahead of Neptune by 31.7° and Uranus behind by 8.5°, Jupiter in between). Urhixidur 00:12, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)


 * 175 years came from http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/planetary.html . I've also seen 176 years quoted elsewhere.  It's my bad choice of words in using "alignment" when I should have used something like "geometric arrangement".  I'll fix that.  Thanks for pointing that out.--Clemmentine 01:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Selected anniversary
An event mentioned in this article is an August 20 selected anniversary. No it isn't! But, it's listed on the (IMHO) rather arbitrary date August 24, when the probe in 2003 "was 71 astronomical units distant from Earth". Why is this date important at all? -DBrane 08:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Uranus tilt
"Uranus has an Axial tilt of 97.77°". Reading the definition of axial tilt I don't understand the meaning of a figure greater than 90 degrees.
 * According to Uranus the number greater than 90 degrees is based upon the direction of rotation. (SEWilco 06:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Yep, all planet except Uranus have the same rotation direction as orbital direction (Counter-clockwise looking from the above the North pole of the sun), and most theories of solar system formation say they should be the same, so whatever hit Uranus knocked it more than 90 degrees off axis. Angles above 180 degrees don't make any sense though. JamesHoadley 10:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Angles above 90 degrees do make a great deal of sense. An axial tilt of 180 degrees would mean that the planet would have the same axis (measured with respect to the axis of the Sun), but rotating in the opposite direction. Then, an axial tilt of 360 degrees would be back in the same direction that it was it was originally (with an axis in parallel with the axis of the sun). Actually, all rotational axis tilts are measured with respect to the plane of the ecliptic, but the axial tilt of the sun is practically zero. Someone needs to study some trigonometry, where it is eventually shown that angles can be measured anywhere between minus infinity and plus infinity.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References
This is minor compared to the other problems, but the same three cultural references attributed to Voyager 2 are attributed to Voyager 1 on the Voyager 1 page.
 * They're not now! I didn't delete it and I've never seen it like that. The Voyager program page does have some different ones. Remember to sign your messages on talk pages with ~ . JamesHoadley 14:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm ereasing the references to the YTMND sites. I like YTMND, but we don't need to clutter every article with every random YTMND that is made.  Nanded 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of launch
Was Voyager 2 launched a month before Voyager 1? Because that's what the Wikipedia is telling people. --82.29.226.251 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the case. Voyager 1 was (and still is) faster so it reached Jupiter well-before Voyager 2.--JyriL talk 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Voyager 2 was launched on a slower, more-curved trajectory than Voyager 1 was. They were numbered the way they were because on its faster trajectory, Voyager 1 flew by Jupiter in 1979, but Voyager 2 reached Jupiter in 1980. Likewise, Voyager 1 reached Saturn before Voyager 2 did. Thus, it was less confusing to number the two space probes the way that NASA did.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity of phraseology
At present [15:33 GMT 25/8/06] this article uses the phrase "when every major planet in the solar system had now been visited at least once by human-made spacecraft." Does this imply that there is evidence that some/all have been visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft, and if so what is the citation, please ? -- Simon Cursitor 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said or implied with that phrase that there was any evidence whatsoever that any of our planets have been visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft. However, there is the remote possibility that they might have been visited, and so, why not allow that as a possibility? However, so many people get confused by allowing the possibility that something might have happened, and claiming that it did happen. There is a huge difference between these two.74.249.82.221 (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
The last sentence of the Jupiter section doesn't match the text when I try to edit it. In the article the grammar and spelling are terrible but when I go to the edit section, everything is correct. Someone with more power please edit.161.184.182.112 09:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text source issue
Certain fragments of the article have been apparently taken from the narrative of BBC's The Planets series, episode 3: Giants. I wonder if it's fine with Wikipedia principles... ;-) Ijon-Tichy 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, copyright violation certainly isn't one of Wikipedia's principles. Tell me, is the violating text from this edit? Anonymous editor User:83.30.32.137 added a whole chunk of literary-type text in two edits, that could be what your talking about. --JamesHoadley 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise the fragments you have provided. However, I did recognise other ones immediately - the tables below make up a comparison of the original BBC and Wikipedia versions (left side and right side, respectively), fragment by fragment. That's all I have managed to track down.

Ijon-Tichy 13:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, this seems to have been done by two editors, the 2 Jupiter paragraphs (plus another) by User:217.37.214.57 here, and the Saturn paragraphs (plus some Neptune text) by User:84.65.34.122 here. User:217.37.214.57 also did this and this edit. I guess we wait for 24 hours for anyone else to chime in then delete these edits. I've seen The Planets, and this prose seems like the sort of naration in that series. --JamesHoadley 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've notified the Copyright violations people, see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --JamesHoadley 13:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just removed all edits by User:217.37.214.57 and User:84.65.34.122 in this article, justification being that one user was able to cite whole chunks that matched up with The Planets series, I've seen this series ages ago and it seemed vaguely familiar, and all paragraphs by these users that Ijon-Tichy didn't cite were consistent with ones he/she did. --JamesHoadley 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor choice of words?
"Fortunately, the mission team was able to fix the problem -- caused by overuse that temporarily depleted its lubricant -- and the probe was given the go-ahead to examine Uranus."


 * I'm gonna go out on a limb and say whoever added that line in worded it as such as a joke. Funny funny.
 * You're being an idiot. The sentence makes perfect sense, and this problem has been written up many times in magazine articles, books, and reports about the Voyager missions.74.249.82.221 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

--- Can anyone confirm this statement? I can't seem to find it anywhere on the Web. Perhaps this doesn't belong in the article.


 * When referring to the Web as in the World Wide Web, it is always capitalized, and can't you get this through your head?74.249.82.221 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

--Borisborf 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These sites mention the problem:
 * http://space.about.com/od/voyagermissions/p/voyager2.htm
 * http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Target=Saturn&MCode=Voyager_2
 * Andy120290 06:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Andy120290 06:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think puns are pretty much unavoidable here - I mean, the title of the section is "Encounter with Uranus". I mean, come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.72.6 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording
"Ground crews... forgot to send an important activation code to Voyager 2. This caused the probe to shut down its main high-gain antenna. Fortunately, ground crews were able to establish contact through the craft's low-gain antenna and activate it."

Does this mean they were able to activate the high-gain antenna? Or just that they were able to establish contact soley by low-gain? 81.157.0.17 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "... low-gain antenna and reactivate it." The HGA shut down, so ground communicated with the still active LGA, and commanded Voyager 2 to reactivate it's HGA. I don't have a source, but the HGA was working for the rest of the trip. -- JamesHoadley 10:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

" at a fraction of the money later spent"
does this sentence account for inflation?--87.168.67.204 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the cost of the mission, so I put a citation needed mark next to it. It's probably true (Voyager 2 was probably cheaper than Galileo and Cassini, because it's simpler and shared it's development cost with Voyager 1, and it visited 4 times as many planets), but also of little meaning, because the latter probes orbited the planets and returned a lot more data. -- JamesHoadley 10:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Cassini article says it cost $3.26e9. A quick check of the net finds Voyager 1+2 at $8.65e8.  An inflation calculator says the factor from 1975 to 2006 is about 4.  So per-probe, the cost of Voyager is about 1/2 of Cassini.  Caveats with this kind of thing are that the 1975-2006 may not be the right interval, money was spent over a long period and at varying rates in both projects (need to integrate), and it is a consumer price index-based estimate, where we are talking about military/aerospace stuff.  But it's extremely likely the general conclusion is valid:  mass production, even of 2 units, is more economical than one-off stuff.  Can you imagine the disaster had Cassini exploded on the pad?  Mars Observer was bad enough.  mdf (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Where's it headed?
Article should state where it's going. An obvious question many readers will wonder. Tempshill 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Voyager 2 is going towards an unnamed point in the darkness of deep space, and it will be dead, dead long, long before it gets there, and so, nobody with any common sense really cares.74.249.82.221 (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean 'nobody with a lack of imagination', presumably. Tempshill (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Article Voyager Golden Record says it is going to pass 'near' Ross 248, but this article does not mention this. Is one or the other in error? 68.148.255.247 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)AMCKen

Miranda photo
Could someone add the remarkable Miranda photo mosaic (I think it's a mosaic) to the gallery of Uranus photos in this article? Tempshill 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * added Traveler100 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Velocity - Expansion request
The above is either missing from the article or somewhat unclear. One would think that the velocity of the vehicle would be something important enough to make clear in the LEAD or an infobox. MrZaius talk  17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1: What is the vessel's current velocity?
 * 2: Is it still accelerating?
 * 2a: If so, at what rate?
 * 2b: If not, when did it stop?
 * 3: What propelled/propells the craft?


 * It's on a hyperbolic orbit (escape orbit). So its current velocity is always decreasing but not to zero. It most recently stopped accelerating (i.e., its acceleration became negative) at its closest approach to Neptune (August 25, 1989). The craft was propelled by a rocket at launch and orbit insertion; since then it has been unpropelled (in free fall) -- its motion controlled only by the gravitational fields.
 * Given that its current velocity [and its (negative) acceleration] is changing, it doesn't seem all that practical to put it into the article. Then again, the current position is mentioned (in "current status").  There's also a link to a site with more detail. Paul Koning 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Voyager 2 is now decelerating so slowly (caused by the solar gravity) that it is meaningful to approximate its speed in astronomical units per year. This is already done int the Voyager 1 article in the Wikipedia.
 * I have found that some people completely do not understand that something is on a ballistic trajectory. There is no power that is needed to make it "go". Nit-wit journalists write that some of these space probes are "nuclear powered" - but without saying anything about the fact that this is strictly for the electrical power for the instruments, computers, heaters, and radio transmitters. Nuclear power doesn't have anything to do with any kind of outer space rocket. The deep-space probes that have used nuclear power for electricity have been the Viking 1 & 2 landers, Pioneer 10 & 11, Voyager 1 & 2, Galileo, Cassini, and the new one that is on its way to Pluto and beyond. Nuclear power has been needed to go into the dark distances of outer space, and in the case of the Vikings, for compactness and to enable them to operate all night on the Martian surface. (for about 12 hours per night, just likeon the Earth, by coincidence).74.249.82.221 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail in Jupiter section
The Jupiter section has too much background detail about Jupiter itself. It should be limited to Jupiter in relation to Voyager 2 (dates of flyby, moons visited, discoveries made by Voyager 2 specifically). See Voyager 1 for a better model. --IanOsgood (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing text, specifically because it appears to still contain unsourced material. -L4N —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loser4Now (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sirius
'It will pass by the star Sirius at a distance of 1.32 parsecs (4.3 ly, 25 trillion mi).'

Isn't 4 light years 24 BILLION miles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.56.235 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. 1LY=5.88x1012mi.  TREKphiler  07:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Distance to Sirius
Sirius is not 1.3 parsecs away. Sirius is 2.6 parsecs away. α centauri is 1.3 parsecs away. I would correct the main article, but I don't know if the math is for Sirius or for α centauri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ennisj (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about the distances. Although the article stated Voyager would pass by at 1.3 parsecs, it could have been better worded so I adjusted it to now read this:
 * ''It will pass by the 2.6 parsec distant star Sirius at a distance of 1.32 parsecs (4.3 ly, 25 trillion mi) in about 296,000 years.
 * 84user (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Saturn approach
Voyager 1, according to its article, was 177,000 km from Saturn at its closest point. This Voyager 2 article only states:


 * The closest approach to Saturn occurred on August 26, 1981.[1]

This doesn't give a distance, and the inline citation is a link to a trajectory-calculation URL that is not a citable source. Could someone provide better Saturn approach data? Tempshill (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Termination of gyro operations
The article currently states:


 * 2015 approx 	Termination of gyro operations

What effect will this have on the spacecraft? Will it mean that it'll start to rotate such that the transmitter is no longer pointed at Earth? Tempshill (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the the main impacts will be the loss of any ability to calibrate Voyager instruments. This will affect communications but also science instruments like the spacecraft magnetometer [] DanielWent (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
Should probably mention that voyger 2 was used to observe the impacts buy doesn't really fit with current structure of the article.©Geni 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What useful data of the impact did voyager 2 send from a distance of 44 AU? The Hubble telescope was closer at a distance 5 AU. The Galileo spacecraft was even closer at a distance 1.6 AU. Mschribr (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Voyager 2 used its ultraviolet spectrometer and its radio receiver, but neither "instrument detected any UV emission or radio signals during the impacts." (Shoemaker-Levy 9 Collision with Jupiter). Distance isn't as important as position: Voyager 2 might have had a line of sight to the impact point, Galileo also had a line of sight, but the Hubble definitely did not. -84user (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There were 21 impacts over 6 days. Jupiter's rotation is 10 hours. Then over the 14 Jupiter rotations the Hubble telescope should have see some of the 21 impacts? Mschribr (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All "impacts occurred on the far side of the planet" . 84user (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the comet fragments had a highly eccentric orbit around Jupiter so the impacts were not visible from earth. Mschribr (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

296,000 years to Sirius

 * Voyager 1, Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 positions from above.png



How will it take 296,000 years to pass Sirius? Sirius is 8.6 light years away or 543,000 AU. The Voyager 2 is traveling 3.28 AU per year. So it will take 165,000 years to reach Sirius. Mschribr (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Voyager 2 is not travelling in a direct line towards Sirius, in fact it is moving almost in the opposite direction; 2. Voyager 2 is following a hyperbolic orbit tending to the East and decelerating as it moves; 3. Sirius itself has a radial velocity of 7.6 kilometres per second towards the Sun but it is also moving diagonally towards the North and West, such that in about 200,000 years it would appear very approximately 80 degrees further North and 45 degrees further West; 4. The up-shot of all these relative motions appears to be that Voyager 2 will be about 4.3 light years from Sirius (according to NASA). 84user (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot visualize it. I would understand if I had a picture showing the path of these objects. Or maybe a video of these objects? How far will Sirius be from the sun in 296,000 years? Mschribr (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake: Sirius is moving diagonally down towards the South not North. I made these two images to show the respective positions of some spacecraft (red is Voyager 2) with a white line pointing towards the location of Sirius. I also prepared this spreadsheet to calculate the velocity vector of Sirius and help visualize its future path. From the data I realise Sirius is moving in a direction roughly parallel to Voyager 2's velocity vector, relative to the Sun, and appears to catch it up and will pass it by in the distant future. How to best phrase this for the average reader to avoid giving a misleading idea? -84user (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pictures. Does the picture also have the path and direction Sirius is moving? Is it also the white line? When will Sirius be closest to the Sun? How close will Sirius get to the Sun? Mschribr (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this gallery will help. Yellow shell is ten light years radius, red arrow is Voyager 2's path, long white diagonal line is path of Sirius (distance from Sun shown by 8.6 light years long short white line to left). From my model I would guess Sirius gets no closer to the Sun than about 7 light years. 84user (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pictures. Thing are getting clearer. Sirius is also moving from the left side to the right side the same direction as voyager 2 along the long white line? Mschribr (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here??
Someone has been adding a ton of stuff to the mission profile section. There are two big problems with it from what I can tell. 1) None of it is cited and 2) it is written very poorly. Something needs to be done or it is all just going to have to be reverted. Andy120290 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Coding glitch
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/nasa-tracking-voyager2-problem-100506.html ''Voyager 2's flight data system, which formats information before beaming it back to Earth, has experienced a hiccup that altered the pattern in which it sends updates home. Because of that pattern change, mission managers can no longer decode the science data beamed to Earth from Voyager 2.'' 74.37.236.33 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Encryption
I think we should make it unaware of the unknown encryption that Voyager 2 recently sent back to Earth.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wacky/have-aliens-hijacked-voyager-2-spacecraft/story-e6frev20-1225865566982 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.36.88 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

camera system?
what camera system did the voyager 2 have? Any details please? --207.98.200.108 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Voyager probes used vidicon cameras. --Xession (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientific instruments Failures
Please Can We Have More Explanation On The scientific Insturments and how and why they failed and explain what all the insturments do in more detail please! 81.152.251.246 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This article should at least give a list of the instruments that were put on Voyager 2
This article should at least give a list of the instruments that were put on Voyager 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.82.221 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup--achieved stub status.
I've done a major cleanup. Gone is the Voyager Golder Record (linked from Voyager program), Launch/Jup/Sat/Ur/Neptune all have different sections now. Science result unique to Voyager 2 (not Voyager 1) added, should have science section in Voyager program.

Began decent Uranus and Neptune sections, as Voyager 2 is the only craft to visit these planets.

See talk in Talk:Voyager program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHoadley (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 February 2005 (UTC)

Table of instruments with activity status - which craft ?
There are two such tables in the "Voyager program" and "Voyager 1" articles. The two lists appear to be slightly different. In the "Voyager 2" article, however, there is no such list. Could the 2 lists be checked against recent data and moved to the appropriate articles? At the moment, it is hard to tell which one is for V1 and which is for V2. In particular, the table in the "Voyager program" does not indicated to which craft it pertains. Thanks. Fi11222 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why 2 conflicting figures ?
Sorry for my bad english, but I have a question. Why having 2 conflicting figures about flight duration (so far) almost next to each other: 35 years, 1 month, 9 days and 33 years, 2 months and 20 days ?

Best regards, Frans Gielen FransGielen (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Updated distance
In first paragraph of introduction, I updated distance using jpl page http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/index.html which has both Voyagers' data updating second by second. Since its distance both from Sun and from Earth are probably the most sought after thing about these two probes, if anyone can figure out a better way to update the distance number, I think that would add a lot to the article. For an example of what I mean, refer to link. It is beyond my competencies.173.189.72.242 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure would be nice to know
Sure would be nice to know what instruments are "active", "disabled", and WTF those terms mean. While the terms are used in the table of scientific instruments, they are NOT defined. Really, really sloppy editing/writing. I politely suggest that the table have an "as of" column for dates the information was last verified. I also suggest that the most recent paper which contains data from that particular instrument system be cited. I could find neither. I can also affirm that the gobbledegook on the NASA site is useless unless you already understand what the terminology means. Wide aperture? GS-4? WTF?? Basically, I'm looking for status, not simple distance from Earth and speed! woo hoo! If the "active" instruments are not in use, when were they last?72.172.1.28 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Oort Cloud Passage?
The Voyager 1 article mentions extensively the passage and significance of the Oort cloud. If I am to understand correctly, won't the Voyager 2 also pass through this area? Can events pertaining to this and other significant passages of both Voyagers be included in both articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.98.194 (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

New information compared to voyager 1?
Most of the content in this article is a copy of the voyager 1 page. Can this be merged into voyager 1 as a subsection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:400D:D162:FC23:C2A0:8F1E (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Distance to Sirius -- Which one is correct?
"Voyager 2 should pass by the star Sirius at a distance of 8.6 light-years." Could someone please verify this recently changed distance? NASA claims "it will pass 4.3 light-years (25 trillion miles) from Sirius." see here. The NASA number makes more sense because Sirius is only 8.6 light years away from earth with that distance shrinking in the future. Thanks a lot. --Linear77 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch; This is really messed up. first made the change, then reverted himself; I repeated the change after reading the Sirius page. I guess we both misunderstood the intent of 4.3 as the distance to Sirius rather than Sirius' distance to Earth. It should be fixed (maybe clarified), using the above source. But since 4.3 is exactly half-way between Earth and Sirius, calling that a pass-by is questionable. But the sources say the probe's power should be effectively gone by 2020 (not 2025 as the article now says). And since Voyager will long be dead, and there is no reason to believe Earth or humans will still exist in 296,000 years, doesn't this really amount to trivia? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. You could use the NASA material as a reference. -- It is not trivia for me because by looking to Sirius I see where the probe is heading... (BTW, planet earth will be around by then, that is for sure. But humans...well, that is different issue.) Thanks again.--Linear77 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Despite the corrected distance, there is still a puzzle out there (at least for me): Voyager 2 travels southbound compared to the ecliptic, that's why only the Australian station of the DSN can communicate with it. How come that it will pass Sirius, which is a star visible from the northern hemisphere (and, hence, is located "north" of the sun's ecliptic plane)? Thanks for any help!--Linear77 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voyager 2. 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/20121720000900/http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/index.html to http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/index.html

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) 10:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Future speeds messed up - or not
In "Interstellar mission", we have: Voyager 2 will need about 19,390 years at its current velocity to travel a complete light year I believe this is about right. However, in "Future of the probe", we have: in roughly 40,000 years it should pass 1.7 light-years from the star Ross 248. This suggests that Ross 248 is currently just over 2 light years from Voyager 2; however, it is actually 10.30 light-years away.

I therefore think that the 40,000 years figure is rubbish. I think a better number would be around 200,644 years, based on V2's current speed.

Yes, I know the 40,000 year number came from Nasa; but as far as I can see, it's just plain wrong. In fact nonsensically wrong. Ross 248 is not 2 light years away! The 40,000 years number seems to pop up in a few places at Nasa, and I think it's some kind of copy/paste error or something. --johantheghost (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is because Ross 248 is not stationary in the galaxy. It is currently approaching the solar system at more than 60 km/s, about 4 times faster than Voyager 2 is leaving the solar system. The 40,000 years takes into account the future variations of this galactic speed, at the time of the encounter Ross 248 will be one of the stars closest to the earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.44 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Shelf life?
Has anyone estimated how long Voyager 1 and 2 might actually last - I mean the physical structure of the spacecraft? Barring a hit from a meteorite, being sucked into the gravity well of a star, or hauled in by aliens, how will the components fail? Low-temperature sublimation of metals, or some other process? PhilUK (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * eternally, with several hits from micro-meteors over the eons ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.150 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is it heading - Telescopium or Pavo
Article says "Voyager 2 is heading in the direction of the constellation Telescopium." but the 2012 ref just seems to note it was then in the direction of Telescopium. The trajectory diagram image under Mission profile shows it heading to a point near alpha Pavo just south of Telescopium. - Rod57 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Distance of Heliopause
In the Voyager 1 article, the date & distance for crossing the Heliopause is clearly given. Why is similar date & distance data not included for Voyager 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.63.16 (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Timezone
Dear Wikipedia users who contributed to this interesting article! I really appreciate your work. But, I think that timezone in the timeline of travel should be clarified (It should be done in the article about Voyager-1 as well). I guess that it must have been UTC, but I don't precisely know. Please, clarify this. Respectfully...


 * Moved this unsigned post from the main talk page from 2015. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Low Energy Charged Particle Instrument
It's noted in today's New York Times article that the Low Energy Charged Particle Instrument will be turned off soon. Nanorefs (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Distance to Ross 248?
There is something off about the time it will take Voyager 2 to reach Ross 248 in the article as well as the Nasa page used as the scource for it. They both state that it will take about 30 000 years to reach the end of the Oort cloud 100 000 AU away and 40 000 to come with in 1.7 lightyears of Ross 248. That would if I am not mistaken put Ross 248 about 3.3 lightyears from the sun but it is according to all sources I can find supposed to be about 10 lightyears away. Amphioxi (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I know absolutely nothing about this personally, but according to Ross 248, Ross 248 and Sol will be much closer 40,000 years from now than they are now. BilCat (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Distance from Sun
In the beginning of the article Voyager 2's distance from the sun was reported as being 122 AU in 2018, however at the end of the article, it is reported as being 120 AU in 2019 - closer, at a later date:

"On November 5, 2018, at a distance of 122 AU (1.83×1010 km) (about 16:58 light-hours)[6] from the Sun,[7] moving at a velocity of 15.341 km/s (55,230 km/h)[8] relative to the Sun, Voyager 2..." "By February 25, 2019, Voyager 2 was at a distance of 120 AU (1.80×1010 km) from the Sun.." Anthrage (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I recently changed 122 AU to 119.7 AU. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 19, 2023
I was able to find when will Voyager 2 overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun, you can measure distances here. 62.43.214.133 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your calculation was nearly correct, because the overtake distance date is actually July 18, 2023, and the overtake distance is 133.92 AU from the Sun. I measured such distances using NASA SSD Simulator along with orbitsimulator.com. 95.132.186.233 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Voyager 2 may have already overtook Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun
I recently found a calculation on another talk page, where it has been calculated that Voyager 2 overtakes Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 18, 2023, which is today. I think it has been 4 hours since Voyager 2 overtook Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun. I found in one of previous discussions on this talk page, that whenever Voyager 2 overtakes Pioneer 10 is when it should be added. Voyager 2 is already the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun, according to projections. Should we say in the Mission profile section in the article about Voyager 2, that Voyager 2 overtook Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 18, 2023? It may already happened. 93.72.29.12 (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)le

Voyager 2 likely to overtake Pioneer 10 in distance to the Sun in July 2023, not May 2023
I don't think that Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 in May 2023. Using |20.185446626210712|dec|-59.57380157917135|fov|50 this link, I checked distance between the Sun and Voyager 2. Using |5.276226288374776|dec|26.043786828898835|fov|50 this link, I checked distance between the Sun and Pioneer 10. I have added a subject about this on Talk:List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System. Per my earlier calculations, I calculated that V2 will overtake Pioneer 10 on July 20, 2023. Per my new calculation, Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun between 7:24 and 7:35, on July 19, 2023. I'm going to change 05-2023 to 07-2023 in the timeline section of the Pioneer 10 article. 188.60.199.127 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's original research and stating things in the future. Whenever it overtakes Pioneer 10 is when it should be added. – The Grid  ( talk )  01:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article about Pioneer 10 already says that Voyager 2 is predicted to overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 19, 2023. See Talk:List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System for details. 46.8.174.181 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The same thing applies for that article. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it's not predicted, it's already calculated. 46.8.174.181 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it's calculated, it's not something that is a routine calculation. A source would be needed. – The Grid  ( talk )  02:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are sources.
 * Distance between the Sun and Voyager 2.
 * Distance between the Sun and Pioneer 10.
 * You can also check distances on heavens-above.com. 46.8.172.178 (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are understanding here. The calculation is still an estimate. We don't state what is going to happen in the future. Wait until it actually happens to note it regardless of the calculation. – The Grid  ( talk )  15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A comment by 62.43.214.133 is actually correct, using http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1511746688216_hyperbolic.html, Voyager 2 will overtake Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun on July 19, 2023. Hoverer, according to this link, Voyager 2 already overtook Pioneer 10 as the second farthest spacecraft from the Sun, in May 2023. 93.170.115.130 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still original research...it's weird that these IPs wake up after a year to comment the same thing. It's a ridiculous form of disruptive editing. – The Grid  ( talk )  01:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 11 days ago I found a calculation on another talk page which might not be original research. Thanks to NASA SSD Simulator, we measured distances between the Sun and Voyager 2, as well as Pioneer 10. Using NASA SSD Simulator of Voyager 2 and NASA SSD Simulator of Pioneer 10, the overtake distance date is July 18, 2023. Because it was possible to measure distances using NASA SSD Simulator, I don't think it's original research. 95.132.186.233 (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The overtake distance date is today, July 18, 2023. The overtake distance is 133.917 AU from the Sun. It has been already added that to the Mission profile and Interstellar mission section of the article about Voyager 2. 2A02:2378:1181:DEB6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The insane precision of units in the lede needs be removed
The text:

"It has been operating for as of June 29, 2024;, it has reached a distance of 133.041 AU from Earth."

I don't see (or the precision with  ) used on many articles. I understand it's a mission to deep space but the usage of data to this precision is hitting indiscriminate collection of information territory. I think stating the probe is 17 light hours away is the best way to describe its distance while not needing to update this article to provide some arbitrary distance. The reason for light hour is because the frame of reference is pretty clear: if you traveled at the speed of light for about 17 hours, you would reach Voyager 2.

For instance, the above can be summarized as:

"It has been in operation since its launch on 20 August 1977 with its location approximately 17 light hours away from Earth."

Thoughts? I'm bringing this up here before making any bold changes.

– The Grid  ( talk )  16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a reader, my immediate questions to with its location approximately 17 light hours away from Earth are "as of when?" and "for how long is that figure accurate?" Schazjmd   (talk)  16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The next paragraph states it entered interstellar space in August 2018 where it was 16.58 light hours away. I'm also realizing that light years might not be the unit to provide as it's not an equivalent unit with AU. (The light-year article explains this a bit as used for measuring stars and not distance. Also, the year used is the Julian year and not the Gregorian year.)

Arbitrary break

 * Let me refactor my original proposed, to this revision:
 * "It has been in operation since its launch on 20 August 1977 with its location 133.041 AU from Earth."


 * Listing the month and year for "as of" and keeping the units the same as existing. – The Grid  ( talk )  15:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's better.The Herald is bringing up a similar issue at Talk:Voyager 1, I suggested he join this discussion as well. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with modification. Yes, definitely. Full disclosure, back in 2013, when I started out new, my majority of edits in these two articles were daily updation of distances. That obsession slowly turned into editing big and finally turned into a passion that forced me to make Voyager 1 a GA. Now, when I look back, it was silly and makes no sense to update the distance so precisely into 3 digits of decimals. I suggest something of this sort.

"At a distance of 1 AU from Earth as of (month and year),..."


 * Just the whole number in AU and only month and year. No decimals or current day. This will be much better, (almost) accurate and better stability for the article. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent issue
I've just removed the para in the lead on the recent issue where Voyager 2 lost contact with Earth for two weeks. The para was longer than the coverage of this issue in the body of the article, and as various sources note it's just one of many issues that have affected Voyager 2 over time and was not particularly serious given NASA was always confident that contact would be regained. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s A micro micro object
Size is 850m or 0.85km 2601:584:4500:3610:3446:E351:C117:82E4 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)