Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelyabinsk meteor 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

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy C‑class High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An appropriate image needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. Once this has been done, please remove the `\|needs-image=yes` parameter from this template.

Disaster management C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology: Meteorites C‑class High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk: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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Russia C‑class Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Solar System Unassessed

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

A news item involving Chelyabinsk meteor was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 February 2013.

Wikipedia

Template:Find sources notice

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2014.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Weight of the Eiffel tower

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Two times: Correct - What about 60 (or so) electric locomotives? Or 3 (?) very heavy goods trains?--Helium4 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Suggest remove the word "fortunately"

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)[reply]

Seriously? The latter is far more important than the former.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity contributions

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)[reply]

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. -- 79.67.249.118 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1999 NC43

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)[reply]

(86039) 1999 NC43 has nothing to do with 2012 DA14. 1999 NC43 has orbital elements similar to the Chelyabinsk meteor. -- Kheider (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yield of primary explosion

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 86.46.189.22 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]