Talk:Lagrange point colonization

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lagrange point colonization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Confusing Introduction[edit]

The introduction started of by saying "Lagrange point colonization is the colonization ..." which is very confusing; is it a currently ongoing process? By whom? Is it being planned? Was it merely a suggestion? It has no references either to begin answering these natural questions.

Instead, the next sentence focuses on the specifics (which point is most amenable for colonization), and the only link to chase in the first paragraph is Lagrange Point, which only contains technical details.

There's also no History section that one might look at for context (if you have the patience to). I'm making some edits to fix these issues, from whatever I can gather about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.225.88 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outside?[edit]

"Lagrange Points are the five points around the Sun where a third, smaller body placed at one of these points will remain in equilibrium with respect to the other two bodies. There are five of these points within the solar system."

And how many are there outside the solar system? Applejuicefool 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None. The most distant would be the L2 point for Pluto, or arguably one of the dwarf planets. 192.93.164.132 (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

This isn't colonization of the sun in the least, propose it be renamed to somethins that makes sense, like "Lagrange colonization" or something. --Golbez 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Earth or Earth-moon?[edit]

The article seems to switch between the two at random. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.98.13 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wrong Lagrange points?[edit]

Shouldn't the L4 and L5 point in the Earth-Moon system be the focus? The article is about colonization, not probes and satellites. L4 and L5 are more stable than the others points, don't require relay stations for communication with Moon and Earth and have much shorter eclipses than the others.Tadashi Ooshima 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just came to this article and was surprised it didn't mention them. I've now fixed it with a link to the L5 society page here as well, surprised that's not mentioned either. Robert Walker (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stability of L4, L5 questioned[edit]

"Colonies at the L4 and L5 positions would have the advantage of being stable without any need for stationkeeping"

I believe that no Lagrange point is actually stable. Can anybody confirm my doubts and fix this, please? --FDominec (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The L4 and L5 points are stable provided the secondary body (e.g. the Moon) is at most 4% of the mass of the larger body (e.g. the Earth), more specifically m1 >= 24.9599 m2. [1] and [2]. I will add this to the article. Robert Walker (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L1?[edit]

"Colonies at L1 (located between Earth and the Moon)..." This doesn't agree with the picture. L1 is not between the earth and moon. Kortoso (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L5 inhabited by 2 dust clouds[edit]

Looks like L5 has two dust clouds ("Kordylewski clouds"). Someone with access to the original study should add this info (w/citation) to this Wiki page and the general "Lagrange point" Wiki page since it relates to both entries. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6321653/Astronomers-confirm-existence-two-faint-dust-clouds-orbiting-Earth-alongside-moon.html Phantom in ca (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

@Rowan Forest: I was trying to copyedit the article since it was very repetitive, but in doing so I want to make sure I did not remove the intent of the words that were there before. Would you be interested in verifying I did not damage the article? I pinged you since it seems like you are interested in this topic area. It would be great if you had time to expand the article a little bit too. The first paragraph about stable Lagrange points does not make sense to me, since based on the criteria in the article they should all be stable. Presumably there is additional criteria not listed that would be good to include. If you do not have time to work on the article, no worries, I will try to get to it eventually! Kees08 (Talk) 08:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the part that confused me was discussed and added in February 2018, if that helps. Kees08 (Talk) 08:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not familiar with this subject and I am unaware of any advantage these points offer to colonization; I thought they were best for some types of dedicated observatories. Regarding the entries from February, they were done by a user that was banned mostly because of his prolific synthesis and misrepresentation of the references, so I recommend you verify the sources and context of his edits. Sorry I can't be useful here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows in Earth-Sun L points[edit]

The intro of the article mentions that the Earth-Sun L points would rarely be in shadow (by definition only one - L2 - ever could be)b then the section on Earth-Sun points says that L2 is always in shadow, which AFAIK isn't the case (but that what brings me here so I'll do more research elsewhere). Strumphs (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rm OR[edit]

Hi, I've gutted this article because nearly the entire content was original research. Do not re-add the removed content without a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]