Talk:101955 Bennu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 101955 Bennu is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating 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 Solar System (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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.

Recent Media Attention on RQ36[edit]

Currently, assorted media are carrying stories about RQ36. They quote an impact probability of "approximately 1 in a thousand". These stories are based an interview and a press release by Maria Eugenia Sansaturio, who is reporting the results from the Milani et al. paper that is already cited in the article. The Milani et al. paper is the primary source, and is more accurate than the sound-bites in the secondary stories - for example, it includes a discussion of the Yarkovsky force on RQ36, which dominates the uncertainty in the object's trajectory.

The radar-derived shape model of RQ36 is still awaiting publication. When it is available, the impact forecast will be significantly improved. Michaelbusch (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Something about this new media blitz needs to be included. Sattmaster (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why only NASA's information about it? What about the ISRO? They have newer pictures in higher res and would be the latest info about the NEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.162.236 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 101955 Bennu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The link to Yarkovsky effect[edit]

The link to Yarkovsky effect is repeated four times in this article. Isn't one enough? Should the later three be removed?--Adûnâi (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: by User:Adûnâi -- Hadron137 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Measuring the Yarkovsky effect is one of the main objectives of the mission, and linking it once is WP:UNDERLINK. Per MOS: "[...] a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Such a critical concept and a goal of the mission, can surely be linked twice per MOS. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitting Venus[edit]

Reading this, I was baffled that an asteroid whose perihelion lies outside the orbit of Venus is claimed to be more likely to strike Venus than Earth. Looking at the quoted reference, it emerges that there is no paradox; hitting Earth is (far) more likely in the next couple hundred years; hitting Venus is more likely over the next 300 million years. I put in a quote from the reference source to make this distinction clear and hope this will be ok. Opus33 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the orbit of a NEO can change very rapidly as the result of just one perturbation. The current epoch tells you very little about the past/future without doing orbital integrations. -- Kheider (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. If anything I wrote was inaccurate or incomplete do feel free to fix. (I'm out on a limb editing an astronomy article.) Opus33 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)