|WikiProject Solar System||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- In 1036 Ganymed on 2011-05-23 02:01:05, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
- In 1036 Ganymed on 2011-05-31 21:48:34, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
How big is 1036 Ganymed?
- The JPL database (reference 2) says ~32 km, but Carry (2012) (reference 1) says ~34 km. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
7.9 g/cm3 seems too high. Pure iron has 7.89 g/cm3. However, S-type asteroids consist mainly of iron- and magnesium-silicates. Olivine is a magnesium iron silicate with the formula (Mg+2, Fe+2)2SiO4 with 3,2 bis 4,4 g/cm3 (without voids).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%281036%29_Ganymed claims 1,93 g/cm³ (without source). Some sources use an average density of 2600 kg/m3 when estimating asteroid mass, including 1036 Ganymed:
From the diameter and mass I even get 10 g/cm3.
In table 1 the source (https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4336) has marked the density estimate of 1036 Ganymed as unrealistic. What's the meaning of mass=(1.67 ± 3.18) × 10^17 kg? Certainly the asteroid doesn't have negative mass.
| mass=(1.67 ± 3.18) × 1017 kg | density=7.9 g/cm3 | surface_grav=0.0089 m/s² | escape_velocity=0.0168 km/s
- Although well-sourced, without the error bars that value would be misleading: The source gives 7.91 ± 15.10 kg/dm3. In other words, the density has been studied and could be basically anything with the current data. It would be good to say something about this in the article, though this seems no good for the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)