Jump to content

Talk:2008 TC3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

redlink?

Why was this page redlinked on the Main Page? I was able to access this page before, but now it leads to a "create new article" page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC) :My best guess would be that it may not meet notability guidelines so it was deleted because I too was able to view the article. Yea scratch that, the article is back!Noneforall (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted at one point because of vandalism-related issues. SpencerT♦C 01:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The sub3 in the title breaks the link. There may be a way to keep the sub3 and the link, but the previous way was not working. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Technicality

Article says this was the first meteorite to be discovered before impact. Is this because all other such objects discovered burnt up in the atmosphere (and didn't impact), or was this the first one to even hit the atmosphere that we detected ahead of time?--Loodog (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The latter. No impacting object has been tracked in space prior to impact, so far. 24.205.71.191 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fireball sweeping over Montana and western Canada on August 10, 1972 represented a space rock - no doubt larger than this one - which came very close to impacting. In the end it was bounced off by the gravity twists between Earth and the meteoroid. It was seen in several places, not sure if it was observed by a telescope, but I recall hearing it was tracked by NORAD for a short while before disappearing into space. Strausszek 10:47 CET October 8, 2008.

I've read through a few of the news articles, and how about instead "the first meteorite to be discovered before impact", we describe this event as "the first discovered and tracked meteorite to collide with Earth", this should help clear up any confusion. Hannsolo (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discovery

Nothing about how it was discovered? And someone keeps changing its description from "meteoroid" to "asteroid" and back. I figure "meteoroid" is right for first mention and other mentions should be the more neutral "body" or "object". Jim.henderson (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, asteroids are huge. This wasn't. It was by definition a meteor before it reached earth and a meteorite thereafter. As for discovery, the article does mention someone at the Catalina Sky Survey observing it from Arizona. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me amend my statement: 2008 TC3 is not a meteorite, precisely because it burned up. It was a meteoroid, and when it entered the atmosphere and became what we'd call a "shooting star", it was a meteor. I stand by it not being an asteroid. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Opportunities to excel

Some genius should add the northpole view of the continents to the top visual, might also add Greenwich as reference point. Also somebody clever should edit the main page "cunnent news" entry so as to tie the global economic meltdown to the meteor, e.g. "proof that the sky is falling!!! Nice article. I enjoyed it. Thanks to all. JdelaF (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

EUMETSAT image

EUMETSAT have an image up here from Meteosat 8: [http://www.eumetsat.int/groups/public/documents/image/img_homepage_asteroid_2008.jpg]. It's copyrighted, but appears to clearly show the point of explosion. The URL does not look like it is very permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.3.126 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Impact or not

So did it impact? The first sentence says it did, the second says it burnt up without touching the ground. Chris_huhtalk 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Earth's atmosphere is considered part of the planet. GregorB (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a matter of conjecture if it impacted the ground or not. A wave of sound (infrasound?) was recorded down in Kenya coming from that direction and at the right time; it would indicate an explosion of 1 or 2 kiloton - read that on CNN I think - but that one could have happened in the atmosphere as well of course. Locating the remains or looking for a crater is hardly going to happen. Strausszek 12.06 CET October 8. 2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

I hope I have cleared up the ambiguity with this edit. I purposely avoided using words that could have strict scientific definitions, such as impact. I verified that the time given in the article is the point at which the meteor entered the atmosphere. I think the contradiction tag can be removed now. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now we have another problem: the Main Page still says that the thing made impact. Or am I reading it wrong? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Tens of kilometres" - unclear

The article says "It exploded tens of kilometers above the ground" - do we not know the actual altitude when it exploded? The diagram seems to indicate it was 93 km above the ground - is this the case? fish&karate 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer this question - no, explosion altitude is not known with certainty yet. I am on MPML and did the position diagram we have here - there's some uncertainty in the trajectory, in the infrasound detection, and the EUMETSAT / METEOSAT IR location (though that's the most precise one). The scientists involved haven't published enough detail on their uncertainty yet to be able to try and resolve it. As one can see from the (revised yesterday) diagram, 93 km corresponds with the altitude where the track crosses the infrasound detection. But the EUMETSAT fireball was east of that (at an estimated trajectory height of 50 to 60 km). Those are probably high - Based on calculations and prior events I think it burned up lower than that. And air drag hasn't been taken into account, though it probably wasn't significant before the burnup.
So, we don't know yet, and when we can tell better I'll update the diagram... Don't assume that the trajectory numbers imply a precise altitude of fireball / burnup. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this one should be included in the list of notable asteroids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.145.99 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Torino scale

So would this qualify as an 8 on the Torino scale? 86.74.122.84 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's not the best place for conjecture: I think not. As far as I can tell, the asteroid had less than 1 MT of energy; therefore it wouldn't register on the scale. 129.62.103.82 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A object moving ~12 km/s would have a kinetic energy of about 15 tons TNT equivalent per ton of mass. A sphere of radius 1 m has a volume of about 4 cubic meters, and if it were an iron meteoroid its density would be ~8 tons per cubic meter. Thus the TNT energy equivalent would be 15*4*8 ~ 480 tons, or 0.5 kT. The size estimate depends on the albedo, which is probably poorly known, and if it were very dark it would be somewhat larger. But 1 kT seems a likely upper limit to the energy, given the numbers we have. Wwheaton (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The infrasound spectrum corresponds to a 1.1 to 2.1 kT event (see Dr. Peter Brown's initial infrasound analysis from the Kenya array detection). That corresponds to mass at breakup/detonation of 65 to 140 tons, for solid nickel-iron an equivalent spherical diameter of 3.3 meters (max) to 2.5 meters (min). It could be slightly larger if it was less dense. The initial (as yet un-properly-reliably-published) spectrographic spectrum results from the 4.2m Herschel telescope team (Alan Fitzsimmons, Sam Duddy, Henry Hsieh, Queen's University Belfast, Gavin Ramsay, Armagh Observatory) are a flat spectrum, no sign of silicates (rock), so nickel-iron is a likely makeup. Could also be ice of some sort and a factor of about two larger in diameter, but meteoroids this small and this close to the Sun are unlikely to be ice. (note that this comment contains information from the Minor Planets Mailing List and other sources which are not yet "reliably sourced" by Wikipedia standards or scientific publication standards...) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Perhaps some tactical nuclear weapons are on the order of 1 kT but generally a nuclear weapon is at least an order of magnitude larger in force. The statement that this asteroid has a force similar to a small nuclear weapon is wholly misleading anyway as it requires some degree of knowledge about nuclear weapons. ABC News reporting this is hardly encyclopedic. News programs don't check their own sources as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.219.15 (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement is factually correct - Many US warheads have optional yields below this energy level (.3 kiloton as a B61 optional yield, for example). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Verify trajectory

The article says:

Estimated trajectory has the object coming out of the western sky at an azimuth of 281 degrees, and an altitude angle of 19 degrees to the local horizon.

This should be updated to what the trajectory actually was. KellenT 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The data is accurately describing the trajectory calculated from the observations. [[1]] Chriskja (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great balls of fire

It was too small to be an asteroid, which makes it a meteoroid.192.171.3.126 (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Meteoroid at discovery, meteor at lighting up, fireball / and more dubiously boloid at explosion, and with no fragment found on the ground as yet, no meteorite. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After effects

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap081108.html

Astronomy Picture of the Day featuring image of high altitude trail from 2008 TC3. FX (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Table diameters

Are the diameters in the table of simulated effects in metres? Autarch (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What could it have been?

I have tagged this section as original research, as it is...original research. I am tempted to remove it entirely, despite the effort that went into it. At the very least, the title should be changed to something more encyclopedic and less magazinian. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Shower of diamonds?

In the "In the news" section on the main page, it states "NASA reports a shower of diamonds over the Republic of Sudan". "shower of diamonds" links to this page. What does this phrase have to do with this article? This article does not even contain the word "shower" nor the word "diamond". --Farmerman (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Its an April fools joke, same as the other headlines. 96.241.121.25 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's an April Fool's joke. The grain of truth in it is that TC3 has been found to be an ureilite, which is a type of meteor containing nanodiamonds. Modest Genius talk 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I got that it was an April Fool's joke, but didn't understand it until I came here. I know diamond is carbon and so figured it had something to do with the carbonaceous grains, but I wouldn't have gotten that I should click on ureilite. Eh, educational as well as humorous! Gotyear (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There's now a better explanation in the lead Modest Genius talk 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there really any need therefore to have a factual website read by millions across the world taking part in April Fools Day which really only applies in the Western World? 86.145.33.98 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Need? No. Harm? Also no. Mind you, this isn't really the best place for this discussion. Modest Genius talk 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting the discovery into context

The article states that this object was spotted 20 hours before impact and that this was a first, but it would be even more interesting if the article could give more of an idea of how impressive a feat this was. How far away was it when it was spotted? How big did the object appear then, for example in terms of seconds of arc? An earth-scale analogy like "spotting a football from across the Atalantic" would help readers visualise this. Or am I asking the wrong question? What was its apparent magnitude, perhaps? Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks. Old Man of Storr (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cover-up not mentioned

removed- WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP - the TP's are not for rambling political original wingnut theories - especially concerning objects floating around our star system for billions of years.

If this alternative theory is notable and documented by reliable sources then it should be mentioned. To be notably there would need to be evidence that there is a significant amount of publicity and belief in the theory. Suitable reliable sources would be quality newspapers (not tabloids), journals, books published by reliable publishers. Self-published sources such as blogs and forums are not considered reliable. PeterEastern (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Asteroids and meteoroids

I am not qualified to say if this was a an asteroid or a meteoroid, but since it says it is an asteroid in the first sentence of the lead (this terms also being confirmed by the title of the first source), then I have adjusted the article to use this term consistently prior to its entry into the atmosphere (when it became a meteor) before breaking into pieces, some of which were later found on the ground (by which time they were meteorites). Do please correct the article if I have misunderstood something. PeterEastern (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Help, yo

{{helpme}}

Hey there,

I just added a gif showing an animation of the asteroid's excited rotation. But the gif isn't playing. My suspicion is that the parent file is too big, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have any ideas?

Tim1357 talk|poke 23:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See commons:File:2008 TC3 Tumbling.gif - it says "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC). I would suggest make a small animated gif that Wikipedia won't need to scale.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Tim1357 talk|poke 04:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sig figs

Given that this article is written with the general public in mind, do we really want to list more than ~5 sig figs in the infobox data? Such values are dependent on the epoch defined at, and I doubt excess precision adds any value to the article and may even confuse the casual reader. As an example, the orbital period now shows 4 numbers. May be it is best to apply the KISS principle? -- Kheider (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well while writing the general part of the article is for the public, I doubt many would care much about the orbits. Those that do would likely find the descriptions of the orbital parameters plenty complicated enough to understand, and even if they did know what those are, I find the KISS principle refers to the description of information, rather than the information itself, such as the difference between an orbit having 'eccentricity' and 'elongation of the perihelion relative to aphelion taken into account as a relation to the body's orbit as a whole' - even if the value is 0.204 or 0.203958384, the idea is still as complicated if titled 'eccentricity' - if you must simplify it, it would still be helpful to at least include the error bars. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The orbital elements change every day during a close approach to a planet. I only prefer error bars when the uncertainties are in the 2nd or 3rd sig fig. IMHO at the 5th sig fig it seems to add more clutter than usefulness. Shrug. -- Kheider (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
...Which is why I had originally included the orbit of the object on October 1st - for the exact reason of orbital perturbation by Earth. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 TC3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2008 TC3. 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}}).

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) 18:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2008 TC3. 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) 05:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nat Geo Documentary

There was a National Geographic documentary, called The Asteroid That Hit Earth, about the asteroid, its impact and the search for the fragments. There might be links and references, etc available in a web search, I'm not sure. Cadar (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Poor diagram of 2008 TC3's orbit

The animated diagram labeled "Animation of 2008 TC3's orbit" is misleading in that Earth's orbit is nowhere near that elliptical. And even if it were, the Sun would not be at the center. BMJ-pdx (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@BMJ-pdx: Your comment is based on the wrong assumption that the animation is looking straight down at Earth's orbit. Renerpho (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_TC3/Archive_1&oldid=1256387483"