Chelyabinsk meteor 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.
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.
In several places the mass of the meteor is compared against that of the Eiffel tower, which is referenced at 11000 tons. However, I suspect (being a French reference) this means 11000 metric tonnes - this seems to be confirmed by other sites on the internet. The official Eiffel tower site (in French) gives the weight as 10100 metric tonnes (= 11 133 short tons): . This would make the Eiffel tower greater than the estimated meteor mass. HYanWong (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a dumb comparison anyway, no one has any real concept of what the eiffel tower weighs. They know it's big and made of iron, but so was the meteor. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
They knowing how big it is and what it's made of is precisely why it's a good comparison I think. I think it should be used, but maybe a little less often. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of how sensible it is, if the comparison is used, it should be used correctly. The masses are vaguely the same for what it's worth. Certainly the estimated meteor mass is not strictly greater than the Eiffel tower, so the page should be changed. Usually the weight of the tower is stated to show how light it is in comparison to its size. So it's not a good example to use to give people an impression of size etc. HYanWong (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Two times: Correct - What about 60 (or so) electric locomotives? Or 3 (?) very heavy goods trains?--Helium4 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC).
Agreed. The point made above is right on target - Usually the weight of the tower is stated to show how light it is in comparison to its size. So it's not a good example to use to give people an impression of size etc. The comparison with the Eiffel tower should be removed.
From the following line: "the atmosphere fortunately absorbed most of the explosion's energy". Maybe not fortunately to scientists interested in such events, although fortunately to damage and human life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeskies (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? The latter is far more important than the former.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The velocity or trajectory of the meteor ist the vector sum of 1. the meteors movement against the sun (plus direction to fixed stars) + 2. movement of earth on its path along the ecliptic + 3. local movement of the earths surface by turning (eastwards) + 4. (rather neglegible:) winds.
Roughly 3. contributed about 1 % to the velocity. Component 2 needs an astronomers skill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helium4 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There's two velocities that can be quoted:
The actual velocity through the Solar System, i.e. relative to the Sun.
The velocity relative to the Earth's surface.
As you mention, the latter is fairly complicated to compute. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it me? I read through the first section and at first glance thought it was being stated that the Chelyabinsk object was part of 2012 DA14. What its really saying is that 2012 DA14 could be part of 1999 NC43. So I think this should be clarified - or the reference to 1999 NC43 removed, as the article is supposed to be about Chelyabinsk not 1999 NC43. It's an interesting fact but this should a part of the wiki article about 2012 DA14. -- Kdconod (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article report the early estimates on the yield? Such as that of Astronomer Boris Shustov of the Soviet Russian academy of Sciences - 200 kilotons and not the 500 kt of NASA http://atominfo.ru/newsd/k0520.htm Similarly, why doesn't this article state the large uncertainty in the larger yield estimate? "A nominal yield of 470 kT TNT equivalent and represents a best estimate for the yield of this airburst from a preliminary examination of infrasound records. There remains a potential uncertainty of order a factor of two in this yield value." http://meteor.uwo.ca/research/fireball/events/Chel/overview.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)