Talk:Asteroid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Asteroid was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Asteroid is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
WikiProject Geology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Asteroid is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.


Merge proposal[edit]

Initial proposals:

I Nothing changes (Asteroid is an article, Minor planet is a different article)

II Asteroid becomes main article, Minor planet is a redirect to it

III Minor planet becomes main article, Asteroid is a redirect to it

IV Asteroid is a disambiguation page, Minor planet remains an article and absorbs most of the material from current Asteroid article

V Asteroid is a disambiguation page, Minor planet remains an article and current Asteroid article is renamed

I don't know enough about the scientific uses of these terms to weigh in on any of the options myself (yet) but I do see that a merge has been proposed in the past but no real consensus has been reached, and I find the current state of affairs confusing (so I guess I at least know I don't support option I.) --Sapphic 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of distinct varieties of minor planet (small solar system body is another synonymous term), such as "asteroid"s, comets, trans-neptunian objects, centaurs, near-earth objects, and each group needs its own article that describes those things unique to it. Then there should be a general article that gives the things common to all these small bodies, and some sort of classification of them. At the moment it's true that the information is spread over a number of articles in a haphazard way. Part of the problem in the past was that "asteroid" turns out to be poorly defined — it is sometimes used as a name for any small object that is not a comet ("small solar system body", with a few exceptions, then), other times refers only to the rocky small bodies that orbit closer to the sun than Jupiter. From what I've seen the second meaning is what is mostly used among astronomers, so asteroid should talk about only these rocky bodies. As for an overall article, a reasonable solution, I think, would be to keep only one of small solar system body and minor planet. Any things in those that refer specifically to "asteroids" or other groups would then be moved out into their appropriate more restricted articles.
In short, I would say that the articles should be kept (except perhaps for deleting one of small solar system body or minor planet), but sizeable portions of text should be shifted around, (e.g. out of minor planet). I'm not all that optimistic about a resolution of this though ;-( — cleanups have been suggested several times already. Deuar 08:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as I've been looking into this more I've been finding out just how loosely and inconsistently these terms have been used throughout their history, so I'm not surprised that previous cleanup attempts have met with problems. There's the added complication that common usage doesn't necessarily follow technical usage (which is why several of my initial suggestions involve using Asteroid for disambiguation rather than the more technically correct Minor planet.) I don't think this is a hopeless cause however, nor should it really require that much (human) effort. I think a central page explaining the nomenclature issues (including the vagueness and historical inconsistencies and changes) could be linked to from the top of each of the related articles, and that would serve to tie them together and let them all act as disambiguation pages for each other, in a way. I'd say the differences between Minor planet and Asteroid that are most relevant to each article are those differences themselves (and not the things both have in common) and so highlighting the terminology in the intro makes sense. Once that framework is in place, I think it should be easier to move material between the articles in a way that makes sense, and which can be done gradually over time. --Sapphic 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. Deuar 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me that people would seriously entertain the idea of merging asteroid and minor planet! Ask anyone on the street, "What killed the dinosaurs?" Are they are likely to tell you, "A minor planet"? Of course not! How utterly pedantic to think that, because asteroids are minor planets, or vice versa, there must be just one article. Shall we eliminate the article on Africa because it is a continent? Or, more to the point, shall we eliminate the article on "house", because it is just a common, vulgar, term for the much more correct "domicile"? This reminds me of the tiresome argument over the use of the term "organic", as in "organic food" versus "organic chemistry"--the nerds always claim some imagined, exclusive right to the word; "...it must be a hydrocarbon...!", but the term "organic farming" has its own right to existence independent of the narrow limits such people would impose on it. English would be a dreary language indeed if the minor planet exclusivists had their way! And I have nothing against minor planets--it is term with meaning and usefulness. Is there overlap? Of course! Anyone making elimination of overlapping information their top priority should be banned from Wikipedia, in my opinion. I propose that the merge template should removed, and I may do it myself sometime soon.Taquito1 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the 2006 definition, "minor planet" has effectively become a historical term. The new three-tiered division which recognises planets, dwarf planets and small solar system bodies eliminates the need for minor planets altogether. "Minor planet" is not synonymous with "small solar system body"; the term encompasses dwarf planets, whereas SSSB does not. Therefore, I think the tidiest idea would be to merge minor planet with asteroid, and keep asteroid as the main article. Serendipodous 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From a [IAU press release:

Q: Is the term “minor planet” still to be used?

A: The term “minor planet” may still be used. But generally the term “small solar system body” will be preferred.
Q: Are there additional “dwarf planet” candidates currently being considered?

A: Yes. Some of the largest asteroids may be candidates for “dwarf planet” status and some additional “dwarf planet” candidates beyond Neptune will soon be considered. The total number of dwarf planets to be found in the coming months and years could reach to over 100.

Seems to imply that asteroid is favored by IAU to the minor planet term, perhaps due to the confusion due to the minor planet term.

Does this mean that List of minor planets should be renamed as Listo of asteroids? Hello dear asteroid Pluto! Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a tricky one because the terminology is such a muddle. Whichever way we do it, I think we must keep Asteroid as a contentful article, and not make it a redirect to some relatively obscure term. Joe Public has heard of asteroids, and he's going to expect to find an article about them on Wikipedia. Matt 02:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.195 (talk)

IAU is now using the clunky (my opinion) term Small Solar System body to cover a variety of entities that would have fallen under minor planet mantle. Not all SSSBs are asteroids. The icy bodies in the outer solar system which are more cometary in composition, but their orbits will not let them display a coma. This group of minor planets is subject to a redefinition that would mean they are no longer asteroids. Keeping a limited article discussing the out-of-date term and doubling as disambiguation page. There was a prior discussion of what the minor planet article should be. I think minor planet, as it stands, fills its role nicely. I think this arrangement can withstand future IAU definitions. I don't see the need for change. As an alternative, create a section in Asteroid discussing the term "minor planet" and how it relates to "asteroid". Minor planet would redirect to that section. Novangelis (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Looking at this some more, it seems to me that we need to decide whether the terms "asteroid" and "minor planet" are or are not synonymous. The very first sentence of Asteroid says in big letters that they are, in which case there is no need for two articles, and, I suggest, Minor planet should be merged to Asteroid#Terminology (which already covers similar ground). However, Minor planet implies that there is a difference. It says that centaurs are minor planets but not asteroids, even though Centaur itself says "The centaurs are a class of icy planetoids (or asteroids)". Minor planet also says that TNOs are minor planets but not asteroids. If the consensus is that "minor planet" is different from "asteroid" then the two articles should remain separate -- but the Asteroid article needs to stop claiming that they are the same thing. Matt 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.10.82 (talk)

This debate looks dead, and I'm removing the tag. My 2¢: Pluto is minor planet #134340. It is not an asteroid in anyone's definition. kwami (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Time line[edit]

(feel free to add to it):

  • From 1801 (Ceres) until 1906 (588 Achilles) all known asteroids were clearly within the asteroid belt (a<4.3 AU). 279 Thule has a semi-major axis (a) of 4.27 AU.
  • Trojan asteroid 588 Achilles (a=5.1 AU) at aphelion does get further out than Jupiter (a=5.2 AU).
  • 944 Hidalgo (a=5.7 AU) discovered in 1920 was treated as an asteroid even though its aphelion is as far as Saturn (a=9.5 AU).
  • The first centaur 2060 Chiron (a=13.7 AU) was not discovered until 1977.
  • Chiron was often referred to as an asteroid since back then it did not show a coma and was not large enough to be a true planet.
  • The second centaur was not discovered until January 1992 when 5145 Pholus was discovered.
  • In August 1992, Trans-Neptunian object 1992 QB1 (a=43 AU) was discovered and everything changed forever. :-)

-- Kheider (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge or reorganization proposed[edit]

See Talk:Minor planet. -- Beland (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceres IS a minor planet! But some people argue that it may not be an asteroid. I believe that Ceres has dual classifications. But until there is a resolution on this matter I think it is good to have a separate article on minor planets for historical purposes since some people seem to believe not all minor planets are asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Is this a different "Merge or reorganization" proposal to the one immediately above? What actually is being proposed? Talk:Minor planet does not explain anything. Matt 02:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.195 (talk)
  • I'll reiterate here that I object to the proposal to merge asteroid and minor planet. The template was inserted by Serendipodous on May 19, 2008, but I haven't seen an argument in favor presented by that user.—RJH (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not yet seen an official definition of "minor planet" that makes a clear separation from "asteroid". Most definitions appear to be colloquial or notional, rather than specific or official. The Kuiper belt is often described as comprising asteroids. Serendipodous 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that, however minor planets are defined, they include asteroids, and therefore form a superset. Thus the logical direction would seem to be to merge asteroid into minor planet. However, I don't think that is a good idea. Most people understand the term "asteroid", whereas "minor planet" is pretty esoteric.—RJH (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So keep the title "asteroid" but redirect "Minor planet" to it. The minor planet article is mostly a joke anyway. This article already mentions the other minor planet groups. Some elaboration on other minor planet classifications (such as classical vs resonant KBOs) may be necessary. Serendipodous 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think at this point I'm leaning in favor of merging minor planet into the small solar system body article. The latter has the potential to be an ideal top-level summary article for all of the so-called minor planets, comets, and so forth. The use of the term "minor planet" can be prominently mentioned in the article's lead and in sections on terminology and historical usage. Does that sound somewhat reasonable? The IAU states a preference for using SSSB rather than minor planet, so that is probably the best approach to use. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea as, despite being officially endorsed by the IAU, the term small solar system body is rarely used. Spacepotato (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well we have a page called List of Solar System objects, and the string "Solar system objects" gets a ton of ghits (including 5,480 Scholar ghits). As an alternative, what does everybody think about a summary-style article called Solar System objects that would cover the entire subject?—RJH (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No change[edit]

These articles told me what I wanted to know. The "minor planets" are not all asteroids, and should not be in that article. Asteroids could go under "minor planets" but organization would feel clunky. Real people who are not astronomers are unlikely a priori to know terms such as "small solar system body". I believe these articles serve their current purpose as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthe600 (talkcontribs) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That distinction isn't fixed. There are many examples of people referring to "Kuiper belt asteroids". Yes it does appear that the term "asteroid" is gradually becoming distinct from "minor planet" in that "asteroid" is used primarily to describe rocky as opposed to icy bodies, but that is far from established. Serendipodous 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
How about merging with dwarf planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.98.226 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Not the same thing. All dwarf planets are minor planets, but not all minor planets are dwarf planets. Serendipodous 05:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Morphology[edit]

An interesting story that would be appropriate for this page:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2794&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I just couldn't find an appropriate section for this. There's nothing on morphologies or physical properties that I could see, other than classification.—RJH (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

USGS's definition[edit]

[1] they say that only a part of the asteroids constitute the Main belt. What is left out? Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Asteroids that are not in the belt. Near-Earth asteroids, for example.—RJH (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Not IAU but still interesting Nergaal (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section -- cleanup[edit]

It's great to see that someone has added a new chunk of text at the start of this section, better explaining some of the terminology issues ("The term "asteroid" is somewhat ill-defined..." up to "...this article will restrict itself for the most part to the classical asteroids: objects of the main asteroid belt, Jupiter trojans, and near-Earth objects.")

Unfortunately, it has just been spliced onto what was already there, resulting in the impression that the section starts again at "The term "asteroid" is used to describe any of a diverse group of small celestial bodies..." and then proceeds to explain pretty much the same material again in a different way.

These two explanations need to be properly integrated, with material from the second part being merged with the first part where appropriate, or deleted where it is essentially just repeating what has already been said. Matt 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.242.239 (talk)

Definitely. But every time I look at it, I lose all motivation to fix it up. kwami (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I had a go at merging the text, but some further cleanup may still be needed. I'm not sure that so much detail is needed for the outer Solar System objects in this context.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, RJH. I think this section now reads much better than it did before. Matt 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.130.231 (talk)

Some general resources for asteroid information[edit]

I have added the [JPL small bodies database JPL small bodies table of orbital elements, for the over 207000 bodies now having numbers, to the reference list, and given the University of Pisa tables (even more extensive) a little more prominence in the list of external links. It is my opinion that objects that have substantially more information available than can be gleaned from such tables, may deserved separate (stub, probably) articles, but I hope the numbers will not be so large as to clog Wiki's machinery. Wwheaton (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen List of asteroids? Rmhermen (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A discussion has been underway for 10 months or more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#main belt asteroids re various compromises between creating thousands of articles on individual asteroids and constructing a table format with more physical information. No resolution has yet occurred, but I hope for progress and invite other editors to join in. Please spread the word. Wwheaton (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

how do i use my telescope[edit]

so asteroids are metalic objects ive wanted to see one whith my own eyes but i dont now how to work my telescope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.194.138 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First thing is, you gotta learn the sky and the constellations. Use binoculars if you have any. Then Sky and Telscope and Astronomy magazines are popular sources of such information. I know S&T has a good web site, and probably Astronomy does too. The "Heavens-Above" web site is excellent and has a list of asteroids that are bright enough to see with binoculars at any given time, and finders' charts as well I think. There must be many other web resources, try Goggle if you get desperate. Good luck! Wwheaton (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Asteroid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Link 2 in the references section is dead.

I'm concerned about a lack of references throughout the article. I put a [citation needed] template in "Terminology" section but many more could be added. I also see a [citation needed] template that has been on the article since July 2008. The "Discovery" section has 6 in-line citations for over 1,200 words of text, that isn't enough, the Historical methods sub section has no in-line citations. The "Naming", "Exploration" and "In fiction" sections have no in-line citations either. Where there are citations they are sometimes minimal for the amount of information in the section and oddly placed so that it isn't clear if they are meant to cover the entire section. Case in point is the "Orbit groups and families" sub section, which has one in-line citation but it isn't clear if this link is to cover all the information in the subsection (by the way the next sub section; "Quasi-satellites and horseshoe objects" is unreferenced). Another example is "Manual methods of the 1900s and modern reporting" where ref [29] is at the end of the first paragraph. Is this meant to cover the entire sub section?

The lead needs to be expanded. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article, bringing up all the points in the article. The lead for an article of this length should be a solid three paragraphs.

The images are excellent, the writing is good, there are (IMO) to many See Also and External links but I wouldn't ding the article for that. The primary issues are the references and lead. I will hold the article for a week pending fixes. If anyone has questions please contact me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point the article has been on hold for a week with no substantive work done. As such I will delist the article as it does not meet the GA Criteria for MOS compliance due to an inadequate lead and a lack of references. H1nkles (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Size statistics?[edit]

Is there a "size statistics" for asteroids available somewhere, i.e. how many asteroids (or minor planets) are larger than (say) 100 km/ 10km / 1km in diameter? This would be an interesting addition to the article IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there are guesses/projections, but AFAIK our size estimates are generally too crude to be of much use. Most papers give magnitude distributions, as here,[2] and don't try to infer sizes. There's probably s.o. that does, though. — kwami (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I found one, though I have to measure off a log graph with CrossHair. S.o. might want to check my figures. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's from SDSS (2001) figures, which show only 0.75M over 1km, lower than expected with a survey of 100x more asteroids than all previous surveys together. However, the ESA released IDAS (2002) figs of 1-2M, which is where modeling from 1999 put it. I'd like to see more recent figures. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JPL[edit]

For IMB+MB+OMB asteroids, JPL Small-Body Database Search Engine shows 27 as diameter >= 200 (km), 211 diameter >= 100 (km), 627 diameter >= 50 (km), and 1124 diameter >= 30 (km). Keep in mind that I did not count the unstable Mars crossers and NEAs since only 132 Aethra and 1036 Ganymed would qualify. The only asteroids outside the core of the main belt larger than 200km are the Cybele asteroids: 87 Sylvia, 65 Cybele, 107 Camilla, and 121 Hermione. Below 30km I suspect there is a lot of room for improved diameter estimates. -- Kheider (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted, but kept at one sig fig. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery section[edit]

The discovery section of this article is effectively the same as a "History" section, and the convention is to put these near the beginning as they provide the context in which further information is to be understood. For example it provides supporting context for why the problem of the definition of small bodies exists in the first place i.e it was a catch-all description of anything discovered that observationally looked like a star but obviously wasn't.

As this is a developed article I don't want to tread on any toes in case there was a reason the discovery section is where it is, so are there any objections to me moving the section? And where would the preference be, before or after the "Terminology" section? ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Naw, I think it's just a matter of a lot of cut & paste edits & mergers, a lot of them my fault. Edit away! — kwami (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, a number of the sections could be rearranged to make the article flow a bit more logically. I'll edit and see what people think. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Human Exploration Studies[edit]

A NASA proposed asteroid mission

USA

A Manned Flyby Mission to [433] Eros (1966) info

Science Exploration Opportunities for Manned Missions to the Moon, Mars, Phobos, and an Asteroid (1989)

The Role of Near-Earth Asteroids in the Space Exploration Initiative (1990)

The Next Giant Leap: Human Exploration and Utilization of Near-Earth Objects (2002)

A Piloted Orion Flight to a Near-Earth Object: A Feasibility Study (2007)

Into the Beyond: A Crewed Mission to a Near-Earth Object (2007)

--Craigboy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline of computerized discoveries[edit]

I removed this line from theo article: "The rate of discovery peaked in 2000, when 38,679 minor planets were numbered, and has gone down steadily since then (719 minor planets were numbered in 2007).[1]"

Although it may well be true, I don't think the reference allows us to reach that conclusion. Notice first that the current data are over 43,000 discoveries for 2000 and almost 6,000 for 2007. These numbers will continually increase as single observations of objects are correlated with new observation to compute orbits allowing the "numbering" of an object. This process may take many years. It looks possible at least that 2001 might equal 2000. Rmhermen (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:571423main pia14316-full full Vesta.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:571423main pia14316-full full Vesta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Asteroid[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Asteroid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "olivine":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 14:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Discovery and recovery rates[edit]

I surmize that the various robots usually discover hundreds or perhaps thousands of asteroids per month, but does some Web site keep a running count or graph of this number, and of the percentage that ought by various criteria to be called Lost asteroids or of how many are definitely not lost? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is One metre the new minimum size for an Asteroid?[edit]

Rubin & Grossman (2010) [3] proposed that a meteoroid is <1 metre to 10 microns, an asteroid is >1 metre. Also, asteroid 2008 TC3 was only 4.1 ± 0.3 metres wide (Jenniskens, et al. 2009. The impact and recovery of asteroid 2008 TC3. Nature 458(7237), 485–488.) [4]. --Diamonddavej (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor Planet / Dwarf Planet Ambiguity[edit]

This article appears to be saying something different than the Small Solar System Body article. According to that article, there is a distinction between Minor Planets and Dwarf Planets. But on this page it seems that Minor Planet and Dwarf Planet are taken to mean the same thing. The ambiguity is a little confusing, particularly since the two articles are saying different things. Thank you for your time! Sir Ian (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This is corroborated by the minor planet and dwarf planet pages. Sir Ian (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it might have been the word "or" that gave that impression. Changed to "and". Does that read better? — kwami (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

lead image[edit]

Nice image of Eros in the lead, but isn't the file size a bit large for slow internet connections? — kwami (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's too big, but I'd rather get it replaced by a still image anyway because the field of view is so narrow that it is difficult to get an idea of what that asteroid is supposed to look like. Reatlas (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparent page vandalism?[edit]

Attn Editors: There is an instance of apparent page vandalism here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid, directly below the section "Naming" and the photo of "2013 EC", and directly above the section "Symbols", where the words "EAT IT" appear in all capitals within a blue box. This insertion makes no sense in its context, and thus is likely intentional vandalism which has escaped notice thus far. Hope this notice helps. -- Lorin (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Rmhermen (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope captures shattering asteroid[edit]

Headine-1: Hubble Space Telescope captures shattering asteroid, at least 10 pieces seen in photos.

QUOTE: “ The Hubble Space Telescope has captured the first pictures of a disintegrating asteroid. Asteroid P/2013 R3 was detected in September in the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It appeared as a fuzzy object. Further observations by ground telescopes revealed three bodies. The Hubble telescope uncovered 10 objects, each with dusty tails. The four largest fragments are up to 656 feet across. Scientists say the asteroid began coming apart early last year. They theorize sunlight is slowing pulling the asteroid apart by increasing its rotation. A planetary scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, David Jewitt, led the investigation. He says seeing the rock fall apart before our eyes is pretty amazing.The pictures were released Thursday.” — [Amazing picture], FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Seems to be in the article here already; nicely done; great series of pictures. (Search for P/2013). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).