Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 March 1

= March 1 =

A stationary object in outer space
Is it meaningful to refer to "a stationary object in outer space" in our buoy article? Is it nonsense or is there a better way to express the idea?--Shantavira|feed me 11:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This appears under Buoy:
 * The space buoy is a common element in science fiction that refers to a stationary object in outer space that provides navigation data or warnings about that particular area.
 * Whether or not it belongs in our article, it is a common element of science fiction.
 * And you needn't get hung up on "stationary" as suggesting some privileged frame, as it is instead shorthand for a an object which propulsively (via whatever science-fictiony method) maintains a relatively fixed position with respect of some other bodies.
 * Here's a NOAA page which speaks of DSCOVR (The Deep Space Climate Observatory which maintains position at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point) as, "acting as a solar storm buoy in deep space." -- ToE 12:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks . So there really is a "space buoy". That's quite interesting and I'll give some thought to working that into the article.--Shantavira|feed me 13:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's a commonly used phrase for Lagrange point satellites, but here is NOAA again, in their "50 Years of Science, Service & Stewardship" 2020 publication.
 * Most of the definitions for the term space buoy read as follows: a common element in science fiction that refers to a stationary object in outer space that provides navigation data or warnings.
 * This, while true, leaves out an important fact: space buoys are real. Since 2016, NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), one of the National Weather Service's (NWS) National Centers for Environmental Prediction, has been receiving data from its own space buoy -- the Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR -- to help the agency monitor space weather.
 * See page 72 of this document. (Page 76 of the PDF itself.)
 * Funny, as I assume that their "most of the definitions" definition originated with WP! -- ToE 17:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a link directly to that one article. -- ToE 17:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a link directly to that one article. -- ToE 17:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as the science fiction usage, its a "In popular culture" type reference, which could be hard to source.
 * Here's the Memory Alpha entry: Space buoy (which I assume we do not accept as RS). Interestingly, it does not mention Spectre of the Gun, where our very own article uses the phrase in question. -- ToE 17:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why can't snow melt here?
Recently USA Texas people posting videos about ice can't melt instead it turned black:

“You’ll see it’s not melting and it’s going to burn. Snow don’t burn. Snow f***ing melts. No water, no dripping, no nothing.

Source

Why can't snow melt here? Rizosome (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article you linked explained the effect; there's a combination of soot forming from the fire source, and that they aren't waiting long enough for significant melting to occur. Also, there are some faked videos as well.  All of that is already explained in the page you linked.  -- Jayron 32 13:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ice/Snow is surprisingly hard to melt quickly. "XKCD-What If" discusses the math behind why that is. The small drips that do form are probably either absorbed by the snow or boiled off by the flame.
 * As for the blackness, that's just soot from the lighter. Lighters not not the most efficient flame source in the world, and some of the fuel is only half-burnt. Try pointing it at sheet of glass. Same result. A hotter, cleaner flame wouldn't leave a mark. ApLundell (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)