Jump to content

Talk:2014 RC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"20214 RC (R-C)" => official name or not?

[edit]

Seems many in "the news media" are referring to "Asteroid 2014 RC" as "20214 RC (R-C)" instead - maybe an error? - NASA doesn't seem to have a listing for "20214 RC (R-C)" or "20214 RC" at the moment - decided to make several WP:redirects (ie, "20214 RC (R-C)" and "20214 RC") - in case - *entirely* ok with me to delete the redirects or equivalent of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This asteroid has only one real name: 2014 RC. The internet is full of typos (20214) and rubbish (R-C). I think 20214 RC (R-C) and 20214 RC should be deleted. -- Kheider (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the formatting seems similar to early names given to discovered and unconfirmed asteroids discovered by large asteroid surveys, like the Catalina Sky Survey for instance. Might it be that? It might be most helpful to try to trace the name to its source. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - seems reasonable - if we do find the name(s) ok somewhere official (seems unlikely to me at the moment), we might have to restore the possibly deleted redirects (ie, "20214 RC (R-C)" and "20214 RC") I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those names are not real. The NEOCP names are very different and really look nothing like the MPC provisional names. Many journalists write about things they do not properly understand such as confusing the provisional name for asteroid 2014 RC with the unofficial short hand for comet 67P/C-G. Typos for the year of discovery should be obvious. -- Kheider (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua event

[edit]

No one has reported seeing a bolide and meteorites have yet to be recovered near the 12-meter crater. They have not confirmed that the seismic events were caused by a meteor much less what the trajectory was. The explosion could have been caused by humans. As usual the press is premature and jumping to conclusions. -- Kheider (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some analyzing of the video provided of the meteor, it appears likely 3-12 meters across, and is traveling on a very direct, head-on trajectory. If it was coming from 2014 RC, it would be on a very low-inclined angle. Besides, since when would a chunk just break off of an asteroid and hit the Earth? This reminds me of when the media connected 2012 DA14 and the Chelyabinsk Meteor. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link that shows a video of the Nicaragua meteor? -- Kheider (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - several possibly relevant recent refs include NPR & NYT => < ref name="NPR-2140908">Neuman, Scott (8 September 2014). "Meteor Leaves 40-Foot Crater Near Managua's Airport". NPR. Retrieved 8 September 2014.</ref> AND < ref name="NYT-20140907">AP News (7 September 2014). "Small Meteorite Hits Managua". New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But all of those are from vulcanologist/seismologists, where are the meteor scientists and meteorite hunters? Still seems to be overhyped facts being repeated by every news source. Show me the meteor trajectory and some micro-meteorites before jumping to conclusions. -- Kheider (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link that shows a video of the Nicaragua meteor? -- Kheider (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I'll give the link when I find the time to do so. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is Youtube link exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Not it, picture of a meteor in canada. I can't find the original one at the moment but I'll keep looking. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
here's the place I found it, although the date on the camera is 30/06/14 so it may just be footage of another and completely irrelevant event. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
meteorite confirmed unrelated to 2014 RC on Space.com by specialists, and possibly not even a meteorite even. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More links:

-- Kheider (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the line: "The Managua explosion on 6 September 2014 may or may not have been created by a bolide that was missed by millions of people, but either way it was not caused by the close approach of 2014 RC." to the end of the article. But the bottom line is that the explosion remains undetermined and there are no witnesses to a bolide near Managua. And that is even before you get into the orbital dynamics. As the evidence stands, the undetermined explosion is only worthy of a single sentence to link the two wiki articles. -- Kheider (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

news articles

[edit]

I find it interesting how similar the data in this article is to the Wikipedia article, almost as if the writer was paraphrasing from it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 RC. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_RC&oldid=1196669433"