Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2013 Russian meteor event)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Chelyabinsk meteor is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
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.
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geology / Meteorites  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Russia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, Low-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

Preceding Cuba airburst[edit]

I added the following to the article about this little known airburst that occurred a day or so before Chelyabinsk. Was this a hoax? Why is there so little information about it in English? If it did indeed occur it seems to be a bit more than a coincidence and probably was connected to the parent body of the Cheylabinsk meteoroid at some point in the past.

On Tuesday 12 February 2013,[1] or Thursday 14 February,[2] at 8 p.m local time(0100 GMT Friday),[3] the air above Cuba is reported to have apparently experienced a similar but smaller meteor airburst to that which exploded over Russia on Friday 15 February, residents described a bright light in the sky and a loud explosion that shook windows and walls.[4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.79 (talk)

There is no reason to think the event is related to Chelyabinsk meteor as small meteors enter the atmosphere all the time coming from different directions and sources. There are probably more than 500,000 fireballs a year. The Yahoo reference even mentions "unidentified residents" and talked to a specialist in anthropology. Details are lacking and it falls under WP:Coatrack. There was a bolide with over 100 witnesses over Alabama on 2 August 2014. They are common. -- Kheider (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am aware that about 500,000 fireballs occur each year, but fireballs that produce BLAST EFFECTS ON THE GROUND are not at all common, combined with the close proximity of the two(February 14 & 15 2013) events, and with the referenced sources actually linking the two events means that is is not WP:Coatrack. Moreover, until a reference comes along to definitely show that the earlier Cuban fireball was in no way related/(had a completely different orbit etc) to the object that caused the Chelyabinsk event, I think it stands that the section should remain as it is. If such a source comes along, then great, we can add that to the section!
178.167.254.79 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The 2 vague sources do not state that the meteor events are known to be related. One witness reporting windows rattling is not very impressive or that uncommon. A meteoroid the size of a basketball could rattle a house or two if the airblast is channeled by the surroundings. -- Kheider (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources aren't all that vague, considering how closed a society Cuba is. Naturally the 2 sources do not state the events were orbitally related(as they were only reporting what state media was releasing from Cuba, not detailed analysis), but the 2 sources do relate the events to one another. So it meets WP:NOTABLE and yet you persist with removing it? Even under your unsupported view that it was a "basketball sized meteoroid", and the blast was "channeled by the suroundings",(two implausible fictions to support the special pleading in your argument) the rare Cuban air burst event occurred a day before a major meteor airburst, reliable sources link the events, it therefore deserves to be in the article. Would you like to take this to WP:3O to resolve the matter?
178.167.254.79 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If reliable sources do not connect the events, then it is original research and synthesis to say they are connected, period. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
We do have reliable sources that "connect" the events, unless you regard the Associated Press as unreliable? Or are you looking for an orbital connection? If so, naturally I too would like to see such a source that looks at it and finds out, but unless you know some details about the object that caused it/some pictures were taken of its path over Cuba and analyzed, how could anyone possibly know the answer to this?
178.167.254.79 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The AP article is not connecting the two events beyond their temporal nearness. They would only be connected if we have a source that said they came from the same chunk of space debris (eg an asteroid, a meteor shower, etc.). Just because a rock falls to earth on Monday, and another falls to earth on Tuesday does not imply that these are related events, so any attempt to connect them is original research barring a source that explicitly ties the events together. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
So you admit that the AP article connects the two events, due to their close occurrence to one another. Much like how 2012 DA14 was orbit-ally not at all connected to the Cheylabinsk bolide, but still, the two arriving on the same day raised a good few eyebrows and has generated great interest to determine, had they ever been connected, some time in the past perhaps? The initial sentence on the Cuban object that was included in this wiki article did not smack of original research and instead simply summarized what the AP article stated. So how exactly was it original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Inserting Gif into infobox[edit]

A rough estimate of the size of the Chelyabinsk meteoroid compared with a car

Recently attempted to put this gif into the infobox, so that it would be under the fireball video, but the attempt got mangled. Is there a reason why this .gif isn't in the article? and if not, can someone more able with wikipedia editing insert it into the infobox, so that it is under the fireball video? Or if you have a better idea to put it somewhere else, then go for it! 178.167.254.79 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be titled the "Chelyabinsk superbolide"[edit]

Just pointing out that the article name maybe incorrect, it should be titled Chelyabinsk superbolide, as the meteor had a peak magnitude greater than -17. Though the boundaries are a bit fuzzy, meteors are generally accepted to have a magnitude of less than -4, bolides are meteors of Mag. -4 to -17 and superbolides are meteors with Mag. > -17 (Ceplecha et al., 1998). It is referred to as a superbolide in the scientific literature:

  • Borovicka, J., Spurny, P. & Shrbeny, L. 2013. Trajectory and orbit of the Chelyabinsk superbolide. Electronic Telegram, Cambridge, MA: Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams.–Int. Astron.–Union.
  • De la Fuente Marcos, C. & de la Fuente Marcos, R. 2013. The Chelyabinsk superbolide: a fragment of asteroid 2011 EO40? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, slt103.
  • Dergham, J. & Trigo-Rodríguez, J.M. 2013. The dynamical behaviour of the Chelyabinsk superbolide by using a Runge-Kutta algorithm. In: European Planetary Science Congress 2013, Held 8-13 September in London, UK. Online at: Http://meetings. Copernicus. org/epsc2013, Id. EPSC2013-1003. 1003.

Furthermore, meteors, bolides and superbolides are the incandescent phenomena caused by meteoroids, comets or asteroids as they pass though our atmosphere. There is also a size limit defined: <1m in diameter for meteoroids and >1m for asteroids (Rubin & Grossman, 2010). It is not correct to say "The Chelyabinsk meteor was a near-Earth asteroid", the Chelyabinsk meteor (or superbolide) was caused by a near Earth asteroid entering the atmosphere.

Refs.:

Ceplecha, Z., Spalding, E.R., Jacobs, C., Revelle, O.D., Tagliaferri, E. & Brown, P. 1999. Superbolides. In: Meteroids 1998. 37.

Rubin, A.E. & Grossman, J.N. 2010. Meteorite and meteoroid: New comprehensive definitions. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 45, 114–122, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01009.x.

--Diamonddavej (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Since bolides are commonly known as meteors, I think the common name might even be more useful to the layperson. -- Kheider (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Impactor orbital elements[edit]

The article lists several attempts to estimate the orbital elements of the object before impact. However, as I tried to check the data, there seems to be a problem with the epochs of the elements shown, especially those by "Zuluaga, Ferrin, Greens", and "de la Fuente Marcos". The first source states to give the elements 3 days before impact (so, unperturbed by encounter). The second states to give an estimation based on elements at the epoch of the actual impact. Not only that those different epochs should be mentioned in the article, as they make a BIG difference in the orbit... The source "de la Fuente Marcos" seems to mix up all those epochs, simply assuming they all give epochs at time of impact (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7202v2.pdf page 8). However, the source that they choose to be most appropriate (Nakano, see http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/CHELYABINSK.HTML) explicitely gives elements at the last perihelion before impact, on Dec 31, 2012. And it doesn't end here... The source with that elements is not a scientific article, but a website that states that somebody has made calculations - but I was unable to find them, looks like they have not been published anywhere... Trying to calculate orbital elements for the epoch of impact, using Nakano's orbit, gives a PERTURBED orbit with a=4.0 AU, e=0.82 and i=10.9. Just to show what a difference that makes... As the orbit given by "de la Fuente Marcos" seems to be inappropriate, I doubt that the given closest matches for parent bodies are in any way well-founded. Can anybody please check if my notices are reasonable? Thanks. Renerpho (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I've written an email to Mr. de la Fuente Marcos, so it's possible that he can dispel my concerns.Renerpho (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the orbital elements are before being affected by earths gravity ? How much was direction and speed affected by earths gravity ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What angle of impact[edit]

Article says "low" and "shallow" but what angle was it ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

[1] says 17° above horizontal. [2] says "20° above the horizontal", [3] says "relatively shallow: about 16 degrees". - Rod57 (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)