Talk:J002E3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image[edit]

Are there any images that better compliment the article than this one? it seems rather roundabout.

When I wrote the article I looked for some GFDL or PD images but couldn't find any. This image nicely illustrates though what J002E3 is (apart from the SLA panels) and also showcases what I think is a nice image. If anyone out there knows of any GFDL or PD images feel free the add them. Evil MonkeyTalk 03:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
FWIW, NIX only has one image of the S-IVB stage after launch, AS12-50-7328. It's not any good for this. Shimgray | talk | 00:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The current image is fine. The SLA panels did not stay attached to the stage. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cruithne[edit]

"no other natural object apart from the Moon is in orbit around the Earth" - is this true? Can Cruithne not be described as accompanying the Earth in its orbit? TheVenerableBede 11:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to 3753 Cruithne, it "shares Earth's orbit, but does not actually orbit the Earth. Instead, it follows a spiralling path that moves along the Earth's orbit". --Plutor 14:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Noted! TheVenerableBede 15:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I added it as a "see also" before reading this! Glad to see that it is not just me... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, "Clouds of dust, even fainter than the notoriously weak gegenschein, are also present in the L4 and L5 of the Earth-Moon system." -- Lagrange point. If I understand correctly, this means those dust particles *are* in orbit around the Earth. --DavidCary 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An interesting point and something I'd never heard of. After a bit of research I found that they were called Kordylewski Clouds and are thought to be transient events. I've added a small note about them and am planning to write an article about them now. Evil MonkeyTalk 06:24, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user added "...and the sun..." to the sentence about the moon being in orbit of the earth. Do we have a geocentrist infiltrator, or is there something to this? - Montréalais 18:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think he's just experimenting. He also edited Wikipedia:Introduction and then edited it straight back. I'll give him a test notice. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Should this article not be called S-IVB-507? Sine we figured out what it is, the name J002E3 is a bit of a distraction. The S-IVB-507 article could talk about the part's manufacture, testing, and flight as well as its re-discovery as J002E3. It would also be more appropriate then to include pictures of S-IVB-507 from a time when it was much closer to the camera. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd pass on the rename. The article discusses the object as discovered floating through space, and the reason that the engine is notable is specifically because it is space debris sighted during astronomical observations. Thus it seems most suited that the article use the title when rediscovered. That the other title is a redirect seems an acceptable solution. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Why was it called "J002E3"? For a supposed natural satellite of the Earth, "S/2002 E 3" would have seemed more logical. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(Answering for myself, almost six years later.) It must be a temporary internal designation; once this was known to almost certainly be artificial, it would surely not have gotten an official temporary designation (and what would be the first and second satellites of Earth found in 2002, then?). Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reimpact risk edit[edit]

I added the reimpact risk edit because I'm genuinely curious about the risk if/when this object impacts earth. I'd presume that it'd be roughly the same as lofting a 10 tonne object 60km or so and then dropping it. That is, I'd guess it would be substantial, but smaller than nuclear or even conventional weapons, but smaller than a regular 10 tonne meteor impact from another trajectory. If someone with better knowledge could set my mind at rest about a 10 tonne meteor we might have hurled at ourselves.... Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.199.245.37 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

an object of that mass would just burn up in the atmosphere. It's not very big anyway. 86.180.14.20 (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a phrase that needs to be rewritten: "These objects entered from low Earth orbit or ballistic trajectory, with less energy than J002E3 might possibly have if it were to enter from Solar orbit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavoexel (talkcontribs) 08:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Identification of paint?[edit]

The article says "Further examination revealed that the surface appeared to contain the paint ..." -- im tempted to insert a request for citation -- do anybody know how that was done? Sorenriise (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


" ...spectral observations of the object indicated a strong correlation of absorption features with a combination of human-made materials including white paint..." I came to this page from the page about Titanium Dioxide, where it explicitly states ... well, why don't you read it. Last sentence of the paragraph called "Pigment".

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J002E3. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)