Talk:31 Euphrosyne

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/Ephemerides/Bright/2000
- In 10 Hygiea on 2011-05-23 02:08:09, 404 Not Found
- In 31 Euphrosyne on 2011-06-19 06:29:29, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass

The mass ref'd Baer 2008. However, it was off by more than an order of magnitude according to the link provided. Density was comparably off. I removed any claim that it is a rubble pile, since it would need to be almost solid metal to have that density. Being such an outlying, though, makes me suspect that it's more like to lie at the low end of the error bar. Still likely the 5th most massive asteroid though, unless Baer (2010) got their figures wrong. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar listing currently says "5.81 +/- 19.7 x 10^19 kg". That's a heck of an error range, about minus 140 (well, let's say zero) to plus 260 Petatonnes (the latter being about equal to the mass of Vesta). Is that even remotely correct, or has there been a decimal point slip? 146.199.0.203 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]