Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:57, 28 February 2013 editAbductive (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers128,985 edits →Requested move 2013 Russian meteor event → Chelyabinsk meteor: fts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:06, 25 September 2024 edit undoPraemonitus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users65,928 edits Rate 
(247 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
|itndate=15 February 2013
{{WikiProject Astronomy|class=C|needs-image=yes|importance=High}}
|otd1date=2014-02-15|otd1oldid=595436446|otd2date=2017-02-15|otd2oldid=765486156
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=C|importance=mid}}<!-- +1000 injuries / buildings damaged -->
|otd3date=2021-02-15|otd3oldid=1006565555
{{WikiProject Geology|class=C|importance=High|meteorite=yes|meteorite-importance=low}} <!-- Geologists study and classify meteorites.-->
|otd4date=2023-02-15|otd4oldid=1139591851
<!--{{WikiProject Meteorology|class=C|importance=low}} Airburst could have created a weather radar signature of very small fragments -->
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Solar System|class=C|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{ITN talk|15 February|2013}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=mid|solar_system=yes|ss-importance=low}}
{{Find sources notice}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Geology|importance=High|meteorite=yes|meteorite-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Russia|hist=y|importance=mid}}
}}
<!-- +1000 injuries / buildings damaged -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2 |counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |minthreadstoarchive = 3
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:2013 Russian meteor event/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=7}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}
== Direction of the object ==
{{translated page|ru|Падение метеорита Челябинск}}

{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|units=days}}
Could we sort out which direction the object was moving for the section "Unrelated Asteroid approach?" I pulled a statement from NASA saying that it was north to south while another source stated east to west. The article saying east to west is in Russian, so I'm unable to decipher it.] (]) 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

: This would be going into original research, but I believe NASA is wrong. The path is more east to west. I have collected of footage on YouTube. It is also worth looking at the smoke trail videos, as they will show the direction of the sun. And yes, the sun does not rise from the east in Siberia in the winter. -- ] (]) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:The exact direction can be inferred from from a webcam facing south on Revolution Square in central ]. The shadows of the street lamps are seen traveling almost exactly west to east on Lenin Prospect, which would indicate an east-west path for the meteor. -- ] (]) 17:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::Since this is a bit disputed, I've removed the north south direction for now.] (]) 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Because both events are over now, I removed "estimated" and "will pass". ''The Guardian'' quotes NASA (north to south). Eventually a better source might be available. -] (]) 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I changed to north to south, because Chelyabinsk is north of Chebarkul, because of (Quinn, Ben and agencies (February 15, 2013). "Asteroid misses Earth by 17,000 miles after meteor strikes Russia". The Guardian (Guardian News and Media). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/15/asteroid-misses-earth-meteor-strike. Retrieved February 15, 2013.) and because of this picture (). Scientific American, Meteor researcher Margaret Campbell-Brown :
:Energy of the explosion was about 300&nbsp;kilotons of TNT equivalent
:About 15&nbsp;meters in size
:Moving at about 18&nbsp;kilometers per second, which is about 65,000&nbsp;kilometers per hour
:A mass of probably about 7,000&nbsp;metric tons
:Fireball begins at c. 50&nbsp;km altitude
:Main energy release at 15 to 20&nbsp;kilometers altitude
:--] (]) 13:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
::NASA update (February 15, 2013 7pm PST) :
::Disintegrated in the skies over Chelyabinsk, Russia, at 7:20:26 p.m. PST, or 10:20:26 p.m. EST on Feb. 14 (3:20:26 UTC on Feb. 15)
::Estimated size of the object, prior to entering Earth's atmosphere, 55 feet (17 meters)
::Estimated mass 10,000 tons
::Estimate for energy released during the event 500 kilotons
::The event, from atmospheric entry to the meteor's airborne disintegration took 32.5 seconds
::(This gives a density of c. 3.9, that is greater than c. 2.6 of a stony meteorite, so stony-iron meteorite (] or ]), probably)
:: --] (]) 13:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:::{{Cite web|title=Russian 'meteor' was actually a tiny asteroid, NASA says |author=Monte Morin |date=15 February 2013 |time=6:30 p.m. |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-russian-tiny-asteroid-20130215,0,5424522.story?track=rss |publisher=Los Angeles Times |accessdate=17 February 2013}}
:::“Tiny asteroid”, 45&nbsp;feet across (13.7&nbsp;m), about 10,000&nbsp;tons and traveled about 40,000&nbsp;mph (64,400&nbsp;km/h).
::: --] (]) 12:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Petri Krohn's conclusion above that the meteor followed a more east to west direction trajectory, instead of the north to south direction mentioned by other sources, is correct. As he points out the shadows of the street light poles move west to east on the roadway below in this south looking view looking, which implies a definite east to west motion component of the light source. Moreover, the shadows of the light pole tips travel almost exactly parallel to the east west running lanes on the road below (along a line from about170 degrees to about 80 degrees). Thus the line traced out by the shadow tips on the road surface and the tip of one of the light pole tops in the center of the picture define a plane in which the light source had to have been moving. Given the proportions in the video, such as car sizes, light poles are likely about 10 m tall. The shortest pole shadow lengths appear to be about the height of the pole. This entails that the aforementioned plane would have an about 45 degree inclination toward the south, with the pole tip shadow line on the pavement forming the intersection between that plane and the plane defined by the pavement. The initial pole shadows pointed toward an about 300 degree heading (light source in the east southeast area and traveled over about the next 5 second time interval via the 360 reps. 0 degree heading to an about 40 degree heading. The brightest flash was recorded when the shadows pointed toward an about 340 degree heading. If the meteor came in on a trajectory tangential to the earths surface, i.e. on a grazing trajectory, it would have to have been traveling pretty much exactly from east to west. However, if the meteor came in on a path inclined to the local Chelyabinsk horizon plane, then it must have come in from an E to SE direction, traveling toward W to NW. The steeper the more from a southerly direction.

The meteor "flashed" brightly when it was SSE of Chelyabinsk at an about 160 degree heading (to go with the above mentioned about 340 degree heading of the light pole shadow at the time of the "flash"). Because the meteor presumably "burst" about 20 to 30 km above ground, and given the above mentioned putative motion planes inclination, that "flash" had to have occurred above an area located about 20 to 30 km SSE of Chelyabinsk. This puts the "flash" location roughly SSE and halfway between Chelyabinsk and Yemanzhelinsk and pretty much exactly due east from Chebarkul and its adjacent lake, where some of the fragments supposedly impacted on earth. Also, over the roughly 5 Seconds long period of the "light show" the shadow of the pole tips traveled about 3 pole heights along the pavement from west to east, or about 30 m given the above assumptions. This makes for an about 6 m/s west to east motion for the pole tips shadow. Given the 10 m light pole height, the 45 degree inclination of the putative plane of motion of the meteor, and the roughly 20 to 30 km SSE location of the "flash" this results in an about 15 km/s east west component for the meteors velocity. This leaves very little for a south to north velocity component, considering the 15 to 18 km/s total velocity estimated by others for this meteor. Looks like a grazing trajectory with an approach from E to ESE toward W to WNW is a pretty good guess after all. A "south to north" trajectory is not likely a good guess, and a "north to south" trajectory is impossible given the evidence.] (]) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC),

:The best analysis of the path of the meteor is presented in these two pages:
:*
:* on Google Maps
:The direction of the trajectory is from east by south, not north to south as previously claimed. The explosion happened at a height of 27 km above the town of ], about 40km south of central Chelyabinsk. -- ] (]) 00:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::What about the satellite images showing the smoke plume positioned towards the south east? They clearly show the meteor having traveled from the north west towards the south-east. In this one can clearly see that the plume runs parallel with the Kazakhstan border. For further reference, the is the shadow formed during the brightest flare up indicating the meteor entered from the right of the map and traveled in a south-easterly direction toward the left of the map. ] (]) 09:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Some more images , , and .
::::It is important to remember, that if the satellite that took the photo was not in absolute zenith position of the smoke trail, then the beginning (higher position) of the trail might be heavily shifted away from the camera viewpoint. The end of trail is shifting too, but in lower extent as it is much lower. So satellite images are pretty useless for estimating the actual direction unless satellite position is taken into account.] (]) 11:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::I have to point out that the satellite images above, Stefan Geens video reconstruction and the Google Maps Reconstruction all confirm that the meteor was traveling in an easterly direction. Everyone else seem to claim that the meteor was traveling in a westerly direction coming in from the east, which is fine in theory... but which of the two claims are true? They both cannot be true. ] (]) 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
] (]) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
{{od}} See: -- ] (]) 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:It is for sure, that the meteor came from the east and landed towards west. As much as I understand the dispute has been if the meteor came from northwards (according to the NASA) or southwards (some other sources) the exact east (ENE or ESE) or from exact east (E). A smoke trail from two dimentional satellite image is not good inficator on this question, because one can be easily mislead by distortion caused by slope of the trail together with lateral position of the camera.] (]) 13:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:I try to explain the problem . The problem is, that some experts are estimated, that it was the 3.rd situation.] (]) 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::I see what you mean and I am in total agreement with you. The evidence shows it could only have been an approach from a westerly direction, so all other theories must be discounted. As for the angle, the video and photogrammatic reconstructions seem to be the most accurate while the map shown in the article seems to be based on the satellite imagery. This must be reviewed and a more accurate map drawn up. ] (]) 02:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::: The meteoroid may very well have been travelling North to South ''in space''. The Earth goes around the Sun at 66 000 mph. The Earth is spinning on its axis at more than 1000 mph at the Equator and probably 650 mph or so at this latitude. Seen from the Moon, the track of the meteroid in space may well appear to be more North to South but as seen from the Earth or plotted against the Earth's surface, perhaps running in a completely different direction, biased more East to West. The impact speed relative to Earth is the sum of the meteors' own velocity in space and that of the Earth's around the Sun. Speed relative to the eventual impact point is also further modified by the added or subtracted speed of the Earth turning on its own axis. -- ] (]) 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: If some scientists claim that the meteoroid and the asteroid had too different orbits around the Sun to be related, then at first I'd like to see a correct 3D model of the meteoroid landing. If they even can't estimate correct landing trajectory, then orbit calculations are certainly wrong.] (]) 18:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::::: Have you seen ] (]) 19:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::: The orbit view of 2012 DA 14 in that animation is incorrect. The travel of 2012 DA 14 was not due South to due North ''in space''. The orbital inclination of 2012 DA 14 is only ten degrees or so, as shown in another video. 2012 DA 14 ''appears'' to be travelling South to North when viewed from the Earth only because the asteroid is moving along in its own orbit at about the same rate as the Earth is moving in its orbit around the Sun.
:::::: I'd also like to see the animation of the Russian meteor orbit extended back out into space and showing at least the last few days or weeks of travel. -- ] (]) 21:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::: If they missed correct course by at least 15 degrees (very possibly 30 degrees!), then how badly mistaken they are about orbit predictions? ] (]) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::: All their orbit predictions are based on one lousy weather satellite image (quote: "Note that the simulation '''uses the published Meteosat 9 images''', which captured the meteor’s contrails, to help locate the approximate path of the meteor.") and they did not take into account, that meteors trail is sloped and photo taken from sideways has heavily distorted track! Note, that Meteosat 9 is in geostationary orbit above '''Africa''', and this caused serious distortion of the sloped contrail of the Chelyabinsk meteoroid! See for much more probable track! ] (]) 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: Another question is, that if the scientist calculated correct orbit for the meteoroid, then they should be able to use latest night sky photo archive to locate the meteoroid, as it is much easier to find things when you know that it exists and you know its approximate location.] (]) 18:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::::: An object that small is incredibly faint. It is seen only by the sunlight that it reflects. More than 48 hours before impact it would be very hard to find. The main problem is that it came from a similar direction to where the Sun is in the sky, so would not have been in the ''night'' sky. It might, however, turn up in photos from a few years ago on a previous orbit. - ] (]) 19:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::See:
:::::* The meteoroid would not have been visible until a mere 2 hours (135,000 km from Earth) before impact.
:::::* The meteoroid would be in the daylit sky. -- ] (]) 21:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Again: If they missed correct course by at least 15 degrees (very possibly 30 degrees!), then how badly mistaken they are about orbit predictions? ] (]) 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::: A saw an article about a new set of telescopes NASA is building in Hawaii, I think. They said that if this new one had been online, it could have given a one-day warning. So with current telescopes looking for asteroids, even that warning was probably not feasible. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
: Preprint of article by Jorge I. Zuluaga and Ignacio Ferrin , so I did better map: ] --] (]) 19:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the ''' from south to north ''' etc. because these directions are useless in Celestial mechanics. Firstly, these are directions in the surface of the Earth. Secondly, there were hours between the two events. Therefore the Earth was in different orientation. ] (]) 09:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
: Strange, that at first these directions were useful enough to claim that those two cosmic bodies were not related. Now it is clear, that North to South direction was wrong, and all of the sudden - the direction happens to be useless!] (]) 17:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::In very simple terms, asteroid DA14 was going to be best seen in the ''Southern'' Hemisphere during closet approach. The Russian meteor impacted into the ''Northern'' Hemisphere. -- ] (]) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

== Lead Sentence ==

None of our sources says meteoroid. If that edit is repeated without sources and consensus I will report it as edit warring. ] (]) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:Before it encountered our atmosphere is was an asteroid not a meteoroid, it was 17 metres wide. Rubin & Grossman (2010) wrote "''However, object 2008 TC3, which dropped fragments of the anomalous ureilite Almahata Sitta in northern Sudan on October 7, 2008, was considered to be an asteroid (Jenniskens et al. 2009) despite the fact that its diameter was 4.1 ± 0.3 m.''" They propose a meteoroid is "''... a 10-μm to 1-m-size natural solid object moving in interplanetary space.''" --] (]) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::I fully understand the rationale, the object was not a meteor in space. I happen to think keeping meteor but changing the verb from entered to appeared is a better solution--the asteroid/meteoroid stuff is just a little too complex for the lead sentence itself. ] (]) 16:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Meteors are shooting stars below Mag -4, above Mag -4 it's officially termed a Fireball (a brighter than any planet). There are also unofficial terms, Bolide for fireballs between Mag -14 to -17 and Superbolides for fireballs above Mag -17. The Russia event was brighter than the Sun, > Mag -26, so it must be called a Fireball (or a Superbolide). --] (]) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I'd plump for Megabolide myself... ] (]) 20:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Arguments here are irrelevant. We go by reliable sources, not arguments and editorial opinions. I tried a compromise mentioning bolide, asteroid and meteor. That was reverted by an editor who apparently didn't even read the second sentence of the article. I have warned him as already having violated 4RR if not 5RR. I suggest other editors here look at what I have done and support it, or we could just go back to meteor as the sources say. ] (]) 06:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Regarding my supposed edit warring, you appear to be unaware of the following (all from ]): "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Also: "Reverting obvious vandalism" is "not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR" (one of my reverts). Also, "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." Your accusation that I engaged in edit warring is nonsense.

::::::Also, I did read (and edit) the second sentence. The current version is problematic; it suggests that the object did not become a fireball until it exploded, which is misleading. It became a fireball as soon as it attained the requisite level of luminosity. "Fireball" is the most accurate term for the object as it was under observation, and it would be appropriate to include it in the opening sentence. ] (]) 10:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Here is NASA's official explanation as to the differences between an asteroid, comet, meteoroid, meteor and meteorite... "In space, a large rocky body in orbit about the Sun is referred to as an asteroid or minor planet whereas much smaller particles in orbit about the Sun are referred to as meteoroids. Once a meteoroid enters the Earth's atmosphere and vaporizes, it becomes a meteor (i.e., shooting star). If a small asteroid or large meteoroid survives its fiery passage through the Earth's atmosphere and lands upon the Earth's surface, it is then called a meteorite. Cometary debris is the source of most small meteoroid particles. Many comets generate meteoroid streams when their icy cometary nuclei pass near the Sun and release the dust particles that were once embedded in the cometary ices. These meteoroid particles then follow in the wake of the parent comet. Collisions between asteroids in space create smaller asteroidal fragments and these fragments are the sources of most meteorites that have struck the Earth's surface." The original source for this quote can be found . ] (]) 06:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}A ] is bright ]. An ] is the destruction of said meteor/asteroid. After the air burst, remains of the asteroid will enter ''dark flight''. -- ] (]) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

:: I support using ''asteroid'' instead of ''meteoroid'' here. It is simply too large to be considered a meteoroid (traditionally up to 10 meters). ] (]) 13:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::I too support the use of ''asteroid'' instead of meteor or meteoroid in the leading sentence; ] is incorrect, per scientific nomenclature. -] (]) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::What do the expert SOURCES call it? It matters not what our opinions are. WP:VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH. On the other hand, if the scientists determine what to officially call it, they got it right. :-) ] (]) 22:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::A ] is defined as a small asteroid '''up to 1 meter''' in diameter. (Source: {{Cite journal
|last = Rubin |first=Alan E.
|last2=Grossman |first2=Jeffrey N.
|title=Meteorite and meteoroid: '''New comprehensive definitions'''
|journal=Meteoritics & Planetary Science
|volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=114–122 |year=2010 |month=January
|bibcode=2010M&PS...45..114R
|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01009.x/abstract;jsessionid=49F5E412A475304A82B1E022F5B9270D.d04t03
|doi=10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01009.x }})

:::::: NASA's explanation fails to say what an asteroid breaking up within the atmosphere is called, only that the end product is a meteorite. Out in space, an object may be a meteoroid, asteroid, comet, or minor planet depending both on size and composition. There seems to be no single official upper limit for the size of a meteoroid; various places quote 1 cm, 10 cm or 1 metre. In the atmosphere the streak of light emitted from the former meteoroid or asteroid is called a meteor, fireball or bolide depending on brightness. The bits found on the ground are meteorites. -- ] (]) 17:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

===Lead: Meteor, asteroid vs. meteoroid===

In addition of the low-grade edit warring, there are about 4 distinct threads in this large talk page where we are discussing the use of the words '''asteroid''', '''meteor''' vs. '''meteoroid''' in the leading sentence:
{{cquote|''On 15 February 2013 a XXXXX entered Earth's atmosphere over Russia'' }}

Please, let's reach a rational consensus under a single thread. Cheers, ] (]) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

*'''Asteroid''' - Because it became a meteor only upon atmospheric entry. {{highlight|It is not a ], as it is defined as a small asteroid up to 1 meter in diameter. (Source: {{Cite journal
|last = Rubin |first=Alan E.
|last2=Grossman |first2=Jeffrey N.
|title=Meteorite and meteoroid: New comprehensive definitions
|journal=Meteoritics & Planetary Science
|volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=114–122 |year=2010 |month=January
|bibcode=2010M&PS...45..114R
|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01009.x/abstract;jsessionid=49F5E412A475304A82B1E022F5B9270D.d04t03
|doi=10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.01009.x }})}} -] (]) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

*'''Asteroid''' - Chelyabinsk meteor came from Main Asteroid Belt... -- ] (]) 18:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Asteroid''' - My 500 kilotons go for ''asteroid''. -- ] (]) 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Asteroid''', per the current scientific definitions:
**NASA defines a .
**
**
** (Universe Today. February 20, 2013)
** (2010)
** . (Universe Today)
::—] (]) 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

*'''Asteroid''' — the object that entered Earth's atmosphere from space is clearly an ''asteroid'' due to both its size—'''''much''' larger'' than a meteoroid (by any of the accepted definitions)—AND due to the origin in the main asteroid belt. However, the second item need not be true to lead Misplaced Pages to refer to it by the more correct title, now that we know its size. (and ''meteor'' is incorrct as that is merely the observable optical phenomenon once the space rock (asteroid or meteoroid) enters the atmosphere. ] (]) 22:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

::Fine, but don't give us your argument. Give us a reliable source. ] (]) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The editor who made the comment prior to mine provided about a half dozen references on the matter. Just read them, and feel free to find others. But all the training I've had in this area, and the sources recently identified by numerous commenters on this Talk page, point to meteoroids beings small chunks, generally less than about 1 m in breadth, off of comets or asteroids. With the current consensus on the Chebylinsk event being that the item was 17 m prior to the air burst, it is quite simply, '''not''' a meteoroid. Cheers. ] (]) 01:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

{{outdent}} It seems we have a consensus: asteroid!

The lede currently refers to the optical phenomenon as a ''meteor'' (correct) but then (incorrectly) states "it quickly became a brilliant fireball as it passed over the southern Ural region, exploding in an air burst over Chelyabinsk Oblast...". I think it would be fair to consider the fireball a part of the (optical) meteor phenonmenon; but it seems to me to be incorrect to infer, as that prose does, that the ''meteor'' exploded. It did not. The asteroid exploded. Or the asteroid fragment exploded. But ''meteors'', being merely an optical phenomenon, don't explode; rather, the basic celestial object, that was manifesting itself in the optical ''meteor'' by ] is what exploded. Thoughts? ] (]) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

;Proposed change based on the consensus above (to be further edited by anyone):
On 15 February 2013, an ] entered the Earth's atmosphere over ] at about 09:20 ] (03:20 ]).(refs.) Travelling at about 18 km/sec (40,000 mph),(refs.) it quickly became a brilliant ] as it passed over the southern ], exploding in an ] over ] at about {{convert|15|to|25|km|mi|abbr=on}} above the ground.(refs.)
:Please correct and edit further. ] (]) 16:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
: The asteroid (not meteoroid, and certainly not meteor or meteorite) entered the atmosphere and became a fireball (or bolide, i.e. a bright meteor - IAU designate this a "superbolide") and it then exploded creating the meteorites (not meteors, not meteroids) later found on the ground. -- ] (]) 11:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Here's a slight modification of the suggested text, taking ideas from both of the above suggestions:

On 15 February 2013, an ] entered the Earth's atmosphere over ] at about 09:20 ] (03:20 ]).(refs.) Travelling at about 18 km/sec (40,000 mph),(refs.) it quickly became a brilliant ] ] <!-- a bolide is a bright meteor - IAU designate this a "superbolide" --> as it passed over the southern ], exploding in an ] over ] at about {{convert|15|to|25|km|mi|abbr=on}} above the ground,(refs) creating a number of small fragmentary ] subsequently found on the ground.

Please correct and further refine, or be ] and insert the text into the lede based on the consensus. ] (]) 13:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:Further edit:
:''On 15 February 2013, an ] entered the Earth's atmosphere over ] at about 09:20 ] (03:20 ]).(ref) Travelling at about 18 km/sec (40,000 mph),(ref) it quickly became a brilliant ] ] as it passed over the southern ]. It exploded in an ] over ] at about {{convert|15|to|25|km|mi|abbr=on}} above the ground,(ref) creating a number of small fragmentary ] and a powerful ].(ref)
:-] (]) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
::I think that is great,as well as supported by the sources and the science. ] (]) 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
::: "superbolide meteor"... "superbolide" is a "very bright meteor"; "meteor" is redundant. -- ] (]) 09:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

== Article title ==

<s>Is it time to change the article title to ]?</s> --] (]) 05:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) See below. --] (]) 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:'''UPDATE''': '''A better and more appropriate title is ]'''. --] (]) 13:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

*'''Strong support for Chelyabinsk meteor event.'''. --] (]) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''. The meteor bolide is depositive. ] (]) 06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ]&nbsp;<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 07:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:* Hasn't it already been named the ]? ] (]) 08:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::*The designation "Chebarkul meteorite" refers to the recovered fragments of the meteorite, not the event of the meteor impact and the damage that resulted to the city of Chelyabinsk. --] (]) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' The name will do for the time being. It will likely be called the Chelyabinsk event or similar in due course amongst the scientific community, as this name will encompass the entire event from meteoroid, meteor, blast wave and meteorite recovery etc. --] (]) 08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:*I will support the title ]. --] (]) 10:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support:''' A quick Google News search on the phrase "2013 Russian meteor" returned four results with that exact phrase. In contrast, Google News reports 2610 results containing the exact phrase "Chelyabinsk meteor." Per ], I support the proposed name ]. --] (]) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:: I'm sorry, but you just can't use news searches for current events like that. Unlike Misplaced Pages, current news reports have an ''implicit'' year - ''anything'' you search for prefixed by its year will get few to no hits. Prefixing or suffixing a year is only done when you're referencing past events (e.g. "The 2008 Examplian Election") or when you're naming something for archival use - like on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for the title ]. The main subjet of this article is '''the event''', its timeline, the destruction and responses, not the physical asteroid or the ]. ] (]) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I prefer "event" in there somewhere, because the article is mostly about the whole event, not just the meteor itself. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*''Support'' Chelyabinsk... This thing was never a ]; it was an ''asteroid'' in space, a ''bolide'' (or super, ''megabolide'') when seen in the atmosphere. One part in ten billion of it was found as a one gram ''meteorite''. The correct title would be ] or ]. Do not expect there to be words for this in the everyday vocabulary. This kind of thing has only happened once in recorded history. At that time less than a handful of people actually ]. It took ] for people to understand what it was. -- ] (]) 17:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Of course it was a meteor - that's basic astronomy. When it was in the atmosphere burning up, it's a meteor. The other stuff are sub-categories. ] (]) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ] as the best of the choices presented. I disagree a bit with Petri's suggestions involving the word "impact" since impact generally denotes an event that leaves a crater due to impact with the ground. Since this one mostly disintegrated in mid-air I think impact would not be an appropriate word to have in the title. ] (]) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Move to ] per ]. ] (]) 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Chebarkul already opens a precedent as for the name of the meteorite. The city of Chelyabinsk is forever linked to this event. Treat it the same way: the ], ], ], ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:*No, it's hardly the only name tied to the event. As pointed out below, Chelyabinsk is not even the main location of the event. It occurred throughout a wide area, not restricted to the city even if the bolide impact zone was located in the city. - ] (]) 00:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::*I pointed out "that town is forever linked to this event," never saying its name should be used for title. I simply suggested that the article title should be treated accordinly. Whatever name you guys choose, the matter here shouldn't be just the choosing of a name. This article is part of many others and definitely, is not a matter of preference. Besides, I have seen many articles change names overnight. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd suggest the article be named 2013 Chelyabinsk Meteor Event or 2013 Chelyabinsk Fireball Event or something similar, with a redirect from 2013 Russian meteor event redirecting here, unless there is another event over Russia this year. It wasn't a meteor strike, only a blast wave that was focused/combined with shock wave and sonic boom that caused the damage.] (]) 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ''2013 Russian meteor event'' is a pretty good interim title, and ''Chelyabinsk meteor'' is not better as an interim title. Rationale: 1) this is not a local event that is entirely, or even mostly, limited to Chelyabinsk; 2) the scientists are already debating on what to call the thing, but "meteor" is not the most usual title for this sort of large chunk that is an ]ing ] or superbollide. For example, the guy who is the author of the asteroid "bible", Dr. John S. Lewis, a professor of planetary science, had this to say about the Russian "meteor":
<blockquote>This was not a meteor. A meteor is an optical phenomenon, a flash of light seen in the sky when a piece of cosmic debris (usually dust- or sand grain-sized) enters Earth’s upper atmosphere, converts its huge kinetic energy into heat, and “burns up” (vaporizes), usually at an altitude of at least 100 km. The Chelyabinsk object was a fragment of asteroidal or cometary origin, probably several meters in diameter, properly called a “meteoroid” or, more loosely, a “small asteroid”. A brilliant fireball seen in the atmosphere is called a bolide. Some bolides, caused by entry of large pieces of hard rock, drop meteorites on the ground: a meteorite is a rock of cosmic origin that reaches the ground in macroscopic pieces (not dust or vapor). (</blockquote>
:So I oppose the proposed change for those two reasons. ] (]) 22:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
*:When a meteoroid enters atmosphere, it is called meteor. And meteor events are generally named according to the place where they impact. --] (]) 01:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Event wasn't localized just to Chelyabinsk (a better, more localized version instead of "Russian meteor/event" would be "Urals meteor/event"), and there's absolutely no consensus in the media or other places to call it the "Chelyabinsk meteor/event". Looking at Google hits, "Russian meteor" beats the other ones hands down - "Chelyabinsk meteor" gets 97,400 hits, "Chelyabinsk event" 7,240, but "Russian meteor" together with qualifiers such as "Chelyabinsk" and "2013" get tens of millions of hits (e.g. "russian meteor" "chelyabinsk" "2013" gets 27,700,000 hits. ] (]) 03:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:*The meteor was seen from Kazakhstan too. By your logic the article should be titled ]. --] (]) 05:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

*I'm '''opposed''' to the word "event" in the title. It's too woosy. A thousand people injured. That's an emergency, catastrophe, calamity. An EVENT is a Celine Dion concert, or Grampa's bed collapsing in the middle of the night and the ensuing ruckus so complex only Thurber can explain it. The term "event" doesn't carry the connotation of a terrible disaster, cataclysm, holocaust, tragedy, 'fell stroke', bane, or woe. It is a more friendly kind of thing, like a misadventure, upset, debacle, or fiasco. ] (]) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I think event is fine, there were no deaths (I know of) some windows broke, a single roof collapsed, it is not an "emergency, catastrophe, calamity" nor do the words " terrible disaster, cataclysm, holocaust, tragedy, 'fell stroke', bane, or woe" describe the event. ] (]) 15:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support "Chelyabinsk meteor event"''' "Chelyabinsk" (assuming / conditional on that that is the name that caught on ) is more specific than "Russian", "meteor" is a common name for this, and event is a good noun to encompass it all (effects etc.) <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strongly opposed''' to event, it's against MOS and simplicity. Chelyabinsk meteor is perfectly fine
::We've got 82 news sources at google calling this the "Chelyabinsk meteor" and one source, "Chessbase", (hardly a notable reliable source for such things) calling it the Chelyabinsk meteor event. ] (]) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "event" in the title. This use of the word "event" is pointless. The ] was only called that because nobody was sure what it was. Calling this meteor a "meteor event" is like calling an "assassination" an "assassination event". <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*:Agree 100% on Tunguska. Besides, '']'' in fact means ''] event.'' -- ] (]) 03:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
*:That's right, there was speculation around 1960 that the T. Event was caused by a kilgram of antimatter. Nobody knew what it was, no meteorite material <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Strong support for "Chelyabinsk meteor"''' or even '''"Chelyabinsk meteorite".''' ] (]) 08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' "Chelyabinsk meteor event"] (]) 08:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

== 500,000 km apart? ==

Reference #75 is used to say that Phil Plait said that this and 2012 DA14 were nearly 500,000 km apart.
# I don't see the 500,000 km statement in the reference.
# In 15 hours, the Earth travels about 1,600,000 km, the closest encounter of the two to Earth were about this distance apart. Of course, at some point in their orbits, maybe they could have been that far apart. But I don't know. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

: Oh well, there is this " At 8 kilometers per second that’s nearly half a million kilometers away from DA14", so that is where the 500,000 km comes from. But where does the 8km/sec come from? The orbital velocity of the Earth is about 30 km/sec. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

: was 8 km/hour the speed of 2012 DA14 relative to the Earth? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The relative velocity (V-relative) between Earth and DA14 was ] shows that at 2013-Feb-15 03:20 UTC, DA14 was still more than {{convert|0.0025|AU|km mi|abbr=on|lk=off}} from Earth. -- ] (]) 11:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

: And since the Earth moved 1.6 million km between the two events, the two objects were a lot farther than 500,000 km apart. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== Bleeding Love Dash Cam Footage ==

I have replaced the link to the "Bleeding Love" dash cam video because it shows the event from just before atmospheric entry, complete with timestamps, and furthermore it seems that the article would be woefully incomplete without ''some'' of that fabled and iconic Russian wide-angle dash cam footage. (WP:ELNEVER isn't an issue inasmuch as the song's copyright holder hasn't asserted his copyright in the U.S.; the video remains up on YouTube, although from what I gather it is unavailable in Germany.) ] (]) 01:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:YouTube's automatic filters may disagree, but any background music that accidentally appears in asteroid impact footage falls under '']'' and is not a copyright infringement. -- ] (]) 03:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:: ] brought up (ELNEVER, CS/CL and LINKVIO) (and even ]); I've told him that his copyright concerns were moot. ] (]) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== First report from Federal Service in Russia 15/02/2013 ==

]

]

Part of report translation from Russian.

'''About fall the meteorite pieces, which were made by air burst in region of Chelyabinsk Oblast'''

By information, received from observers on ground meteorological stations in Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Oblasts, at 15 february 2013 since 7:00 till 8:00 (moscow time) was seeing luminous trail from meteorite pieces falling, which were generated as a result of air burst from the side of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (in the direction from nort-east to south-west) at the areas of population aggregates Talitsa (80 km to the east of Yekaterinburg), Sloboda Turinskaya (225 km to the nort-east of Yekaterinburg), Schelkun (75 km to the south), Asbest (80 km to the nort-east), Balandino Airport (Chelyabinsk), in region of Chelyabinsk city, and also in region of Koltsovo Airport (Yekaterinburg).

At 7:15 (moscow time) 15 february over aerodrome Chelyabinsk were observed multiple air bursts, following harsh chemical smell. By information of AMSC (Aviation Meteorological Station Civil) workers, air traffic controllers, crews of civil aviation aircrafts, during the night over the region of Chelyabinsk aerodrome were observed flights of luminous unidentified objects. By information of Head of AMC (Aviational Meteorological Center) Koltsovo (Yekaterinburg) at night also were obserevd flights of luminous objects.

15 february around from 7:30 till 8:00 (moscow time) over area of Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Oblasts were observed a number of air bursts, probably from objects of space origin. At AMSC Balandino (Chelyabinsk) by a shock wave were broken windows and some partitions between rooms. There are no victims, one injured (cut by fragments of broken glass).

15 february at 8:15 (moscow time) Acting Head of Department of Ural AHEM (Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring) gave instructions to do more frequent measurements at Points of Observation of atmospheric air Pollution (POP) in Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg, and also more frequent measurements at Points of Observation of Radioactive Pollution of atmospheric air (PORP) and at meteorological stations.

Meteor126 ] (]) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== Unique photo of event ==


Unfortunately copyrighted.
Meteor126 (Ru.Wiki) ] (]) 12:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

== Damage clarification needed ==

The second paragraph of the Damages and Injuries section provides (reliably sourced): "''...."3,724 apartments, 671 educational institutions, 69 cultural facilities, 34 hospitals and clinics, 11 social facilities and five sport venues in the Chelyabinsk region..." that needed repairs as a result of the shock wave damage. Approximately 100,000 or so homeowners were affected according to Mikhail Yurevich...''".

The list of damaged buildings was copied verbatim from the English news report. Some elaboration or clarification is needed: are the 3,724 apartments referring to apartment buildings, or to the separate apartment units within apartment buildings? If the latter, then the number of damaged apartment buildings would be significantly smaller. The other clarification required is for the vague 100K 'homeowners'; what type of buildings were these homes, condo units or stand-alone single-family homes, or a mix of both? I suspect the Russian or Chelyabinsk Region emergency authorities maintain a centralized listing of this data, and it would be good to access it for the latest figures as well. ] (]) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
== Orbital parameters ==

* ] (]) 11:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
** This paper suggests that this was an ]. ] (]) 11:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Zuluaga2013 agrees with the data posted on The American Meteor Society: -- ] (]) 12:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

{| class=wikitable
|+Preliminary orbital solutions for impacting asteroid
|- valign=top
!Parameter
! ]<BR>(Q)
! ]<BR>(q)
! ]<BR>(a)
! ]<BR>(e)
! ]<BR>(i)
! ]<BR>(Ω)
! ]<BR>(ω)
|- valign=top
! Units
!colspan=3|]
!
!colspan=3| (°)
|- align=center
!
| 2.53
| 0.80
| 1.66
| 0.52
| 4.05°
| 326.43°
| 116.0°
|- align=center
!
| 2.64
| 0.82
| 1.73
| 0.51
| 3.45°
| 326.70°
| 120.62°
|- align=center
!
| 2.33
| 0.768
| 1.55
| 0.50
| 3.6°
| 326.41°
| 109.7°
|}
(Jorge Zuluaga) -- ] (]) 20:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

::Its apparent orbit along with others called ], would be a very good addition to the article, while specifying that it a solid preliminary calculation. Maybe the table can be used at ]? Cheers, ] (]) 21:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

== Media Coverage ==

Under the media coverage section the first sentence is this: "The Russian government put out a brief statement within an hour of the event." The citation is for an article from ''The Atlantic'' called . No where in this article does it mention the brief put out by the Russian government. This source, while reputable, it not appropriate for this quote. I propose editing this into two sentences.

* The first English-language news came from , hours before the Associated Press. (citing ''The Atlantic'' article)
* The Russian government put out a brief statement within an hour of the event. (another source to this statement, which I could not find.)

I didn't want to edit the page directly because I think it warrants a discussion about if citing who broke the news in the US is really necessary. --] (]) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Added a note about the erroneous reporting that the damage was due to sonic boom. This has become a widespread misconception. Did not add any particular reference because erroneous reporting was widespread across many media outlets.] (]) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

:Likely. But in this Misplaced Pages article it is sourced (verifiable) that the damage was done by the air burst's '''shock wave'''. Cheers, ] (]) 20:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

== Asteroid from the Pegasus constellation? ==

''"The impacting asteroid came from the constellation Pegasus in the Northern hemisphere."''

Please clarify this sentence, because Pegasus is 38 million light-years from Earth. Maybe they imply it came from that general ''direction?''. Also, the same authors reported the asteroid belongs the Apollo asteroid belt, which makes much more sense. ] (]) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::I do not want to dumb down the sentence too much. Constellations are positions in the sky and have no fixed distance from Earth. Anything coming from a constellation could easily be an Earth-orbiting satellite to a comet from the Oort cloud. -- Kheider (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Please avoid your edit war. "It came from" implies its origin. Clarifying the incoming direction and origin are most useful. Please slow down. Cheers, ] (]) 14:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC) (PS: I did not delete your comment. It was an edit conflict where both of us were typing. My apologies.)

::::"'''The ] of the impacting asteroid was the ] ] in the ].'''
::::Yes, that is a very nice clear entry. Thank you. Cheers, ] (]) 14:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::When in doubt, it is still best to stay as true to the source as possible. I was reluctant to link to ] earlier because that term is generally used to describe meteor showers. But it can also apply to a random meteor. -- ] (]) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::When a literal copy/paste is unclear, then we type the meaning of the statement. Your first edit was "the asteroid came from the constellation Pegasus." which was not what the researchers meant. Any way, I think we both agree the current version is clear to the layman. Thank you. ] (]) 17:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Correction, my original insertion of the material was where I did use ''radiant''. -- ] (]) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

== Requested move ] → ] ==

{{Requested move/dated|Chelyabinsk meteor}}

] → {{no redirect|Chelyabinsk meteor}} – Please see the discussion ] above where there is strong support for this move, minus the extraneous "event". please note that gets 48,600 hits at Google and '''''zero''''' hits at Google News, while "Chelyabinsk meteor" gets and . ] (]) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Once again, ''you can't use news searches like that''. See my reply to Mike Agricola at ]. ] (]) 18:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' There has already been strong support for this, minus the extra word "event" in the previous unclosed informal discussion above. The item is off ITN now, Google news prefers "Chelyabinsk meteor" 65 to 0 against "2013 Russian meteor event", and the change should not be disruptive at this point. ] (]) 19:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -- ] (]) 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''': At least it gets rid of the awful "event". ] (]) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::<small>Agreed, "Chelyabinsk meteor event" gets a whole 1 hit at Google News and some 10,000 at google, compared to 200,00 for "Chelyabinsk meteor". ] (]) 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)</small>
*"Event" was fine when the news, some of which contradicted one another, started pouring in, but at this point "Chelyabinsk meteor" is a fairly established moniker. '''Support'''.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); February&nbsp;25, 2013; 14:51 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This use of the word "event" is pointless. The ] was only called that because nobody was sure what it was. Calling a meteor a "meteor event" is like calling an assassination an "assassination event" or an election an "election event". <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 21:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Sure, that works. That's where the sourced point, so let's follow them.... ] (]) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Why hasnt this happened yet? ] (]) 13:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Event wasn't localized to Chelyabinsk, and news sources and online discussion '''vastly''' favor "Russian meteor" over "Chelyabinsk meteor". ] (]) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. (NOTE: I don't have time to look for it just now, but there was a previous proposal to change the name of this article, and I believe it was on this Talk page. It got several "support" comments and several "oppose" comments. Don't know where ''those'' comments, or ''that'' discussion went because this new section seems to have only one ''oppose'' comment prior to the one I am adding now.)
::The prior section is easily found by ''scrolling up from this one'' or clicking on the link I gave at the top of this discussion pointing directly at it. It was a confused discussion since a large number of the "opposes" opposed only the adding of "event" to the end of the title when they actually otherwise supported the full move. ] (]) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I am opposing this name change as the event was much larger than merely ''Chelyabinsk'', and in fact had a regional effect beyond Russia. For now, as an interim name, I think the ''2013 Russian meteor event'' is still fine. I suspect we will have better science on the facts of the celestial object entry into Earth's atmosphere, as well as a better feel for what it comes to be known as in the popular press, in a few weeks or months. But I'm convinced that ''Chelyabinsk meteor'' is a move in the wrong direction. Cheers. ] (]) 23:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
::There is no need for an interim name any longer, as the article is off the Main Page and page views are down to 1/18th their height. It has already been demonstrated that this stupid word "event" is not at all common. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 12:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
::: In astronomy, the word "event" is routinely used for something that is going to happen or has already happened. Indeed, there's at least one "(astronomy) calendar of celestial events". -- ] (]) 12:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:::: And minutes after I made that comment, someone has removed every use of the word "event" from the article, and in some cases replaced it with a word that makes no sense in the context now used. You might think of an "event" as a "concert" or a "match" that you buy tickets for. In astonomy, an "event" is simply something that "happens". -- ] (]) 12:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Like an "]", or a "]", or an "]"? <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 12:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

== Sonic Boom ==

There is widespread misreporting that the shock wave / damage was caused by a "sonic boom" (as opposed to fact that the damaging shock wave was due to the 500 KT air burst explosion). Sonic boom reported extensively across many media outlets. Attempted to add a note correcting erroneous reportage to this effect in "Media coverage" which was immediately reverted by John without comment or explanation. Since this is still a widespread and ongoing misconception (google search of "russian meteor "sonic boom"" returns 745,000 entries) this should be noted on the page. However not clear if this should go in "Atmospheric entry", "Damage" or "Media coverage". Comments please.] (]) 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:The term "sonic boom" is not used anywhere in the article. ] (]) 21:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::Not anywhere in this article, but term used widely and erroneously across many media outlets. Eg New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/world/europe/meteorite-fragments-are-said-to-rain-down-on-siberia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Slate magazine, Daily Mail UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281454/Dramatic-video-captures-moment-sonic-boom-Russian-meteor-terrifies-schoolchildren-smashing-windows-sports-hall.html?ito=feeds-newsxml, Space.com etc etc etc. Reporting error sufficiently widespread and repetitive it should be noted.] (]) 07:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


== Wording accuracy ==
:::I don't think that the purpose of this encyclopedia is to list the events that were not. Stating that the shock wave was caused by the air burst of a meteor, takes care of everything else, including sonic booms, <strike>angry birds</strike> angry gods, or an American weapon test. Cheers, ] (]) 13:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The wording "explosion created panic among local residents" isn't accurate. It was fright rather than panic, so I propose "Its explosion caused fright among some local residents" as more accurate. ] (]) 08:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
::::If it was widely reported that the shock wave was caused by angry birds that would certainly be notable. The notability is the WIDESPREAD misreporting (hence entry in media coverage that John reverted), not the non-existent sonic boom. For example: http://news.discovery.com/space/asteroids-meteors-meteorites/falling-meteor-packed-a-sonic-punch-130215.htm amongst many other. I'm not sure why you think this isn't notable. ] (]) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:Restoring. The wording is correct as is, "caused fright" appears to be a bad translation from another language. ] (]) 01:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::I don;t think it is notable because 1) It is not "widespread" in the media, and 2) it is not a scientific (or a popular) controversy. For example, some nespapers' headlines were "Russia hit by meteorites" or "Meteorites injure 1000 people". We don't quote the attention-grabbing title, but the verifiable facts in the text. Cheers, ] (]) 20:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


== Asteroid Origin == == Article rename ==


I don't see any discussion on the move, and the mechanics of the move appear to have been done incorrectly (losing all the edit history and detaching the talk page). Is there an explanation I missed? ] (]) 02:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
A rough origin for the asteroid was announced today via arXiv:<br />
: For what it's worth, I think the rename is extremely poor; other events have happened at Chelyabinsk. The meteor, while being the most spectacular recent event, is far from being the only event to ever happen there. The name is thus neither self-explanatory nor unambiguous. I expect this change to be un-done, please comment here if there is disagreement on this point. ] (]) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
<sub>(ordered from pure source down to news articles about it)</sub><br />
::And, after looking around some more, I came to the conclusion that this move was reversible and have done so. Please discuss here before re-attempting. ] (]) 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
# http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5377<br />
# http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511691/astronomers-calculate-orbit-of-chelyabinsk-meteorite/<br />
# http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21579422<br />
# http://news.discovery.com/space/asteroids-meteors-meteorites/russian-meteor-analysis-orbit-apollo-asteroid-130226.htm


== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
<sup>I'll let you guys hash out working this into the article. (novice/time constrained)</sup> 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:Most of that has been in the article since ] -- ] (]) 00:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc000f7rz.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/news/Meteor%2Bexplodes%2Bover%2BRussia%2BUral%2BMountains%2Binjured%2Bshock%2Bwave%2Bblasts%2Bwindows/7968297/story.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4345317%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509133134/http://www.today.com/video/today/50820935 to http://www.today.com/video/today/50820935
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-russian-meteor-chelyabinsk-nova-20130327%2C0%2C853927.story


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::Would it make sense to add the arxiv.org data to the table someone put together, a couple of sections above this one in the ''Orbital parameters'' subsection on the Talk page? My orbital mechanics fu is insufficiently strong to know if that is a good idea or not. ] (]) 13:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::::http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5377 is Zuluaga (2013) -- ] (]) 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
== Estimates published 28 Feb 13 based on nuclear test sensors ==


== Category: February 2013 events ==
(From http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/europe/russia-meteor)


Taken from :
The duration of the wave&mdash;about 32 seconds&mdash;let scientists estimate the energy of the blast at between 450 and 500 kilotons, the size of about 30 early nuclear bombs...
Hello {{u|FallingGravity}}!<br>
Thanks for adding to ]. I wonder though why you've removed ? The event was clearly of a "global" nature (at least judging from media coverage and scientific significance), and I believe the old category was adequate. Is there a reason to remove it, or to change it to the more regional "events in Asia"? I suggest to include the article in both categories. --] (]) 01:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
:I was going off the "location" in the infobox, though including both categories seems reasonable to reflect the global nature of the phenomena (I think the eclipse articles follow a similar pattern). <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for adding it back, {{u|FallingGravity}}. {{ping|User:Dhtwiki}} I see you , maybe this is worth taking to the article talk page. --] (]) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


{{od}} The edit I just reverted was based on the discussion on {{u|FallingGravity}}'s user page. I think adding the article to both categories is the best solution, but if you disagree I am happy to discuss it here. --] (]) 16:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The latest estimate is that the Chelyabinsk meteor was about 56 feet (17 meters) across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18 kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart...


== "Heavier than the Eiffel Tower" ==
"the largest since ]"


does that phrase add anything? I would have thought that most people would not have any feeling for how heavy the Eiffel Tower is in the first place, so I don't see how it adds to understanding. ] (]) 02:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
] (]) 10:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:The tower is a massive construction, with a wide recognition across the Earth - this comparison helps the lay person get a grasp of mass of the object.] (]) 13:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
::I am totally fine with adding comparisons to aid with understanding, but I agree with Adpete here. The problem is, I don't have any intuition for the mass of the Eiffel tower. It is both a very massive ''and'' a very light-weight construction. The point of comparisons like this is to compare not with something that is easily recognised, but with something for which a lay person may have an intuitive understanding. ] (]) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Agreed that comparison to something like the Eiffel Tower is not helpful since most people have no sense of its overall weight. If the comparison was to a car, for example, that might be reasonable, but it would be better just to give the mass/weight with proper unit conversions and leave it at that. --] (]) 15:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


I take that as a consensus, and have removed it. ] (]) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
:: '''(4/3) * pi * (8.5m)^3 = 2752 m^3''' (2752 cubic metres).
:: '''700000 tonnes / 2572 m^3 = 272 tonnes/m^3''' (272 tonnes per cubic metre).
:: No way! We already know NASA initially said 7700 tons then revised the estimate upwards to 10 000 tons.
:: 2012DA14 is 50 metres across and 150 000 tonnes. An object 17 metres across is going to be a lot LESS than that.
:: The CNN figure is junk. -- ] (]) 11:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:06, 25 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelyabinsk meteor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 15, 2013.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 15, 2014, February 15, 2017, February 15, 2021, and February 15, 2023.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Solar System Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconDisaster management Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeology: Meteorites High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED]
This article is supported by the Meteorites task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconRussia: History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

This article contains a translation of Падение метеорита Челябинск from ru.wikipedia.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Wording accuracy

The wording "explosion created panic among local residents" isn't accurate. It was fright rather than panic, so I propose "Its explosion caused fright among some local residents" as more accurate. 109.252.37.152 (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Restoring. The wording is correct as is, "caused fright" appears to be a bad translation from another language. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Article rename

I don't see any discussion on the move, and the mechanics of the move appear to have been done incorrectly (losing all the edit history and detaching the talk page). Is there an explanation I missed? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the rename is extremely poor; other events have happened at Chelyabinsk. The meteor, while being the most spectacular recent event, is far from being the only event to ever happen there. The name is thus neither self-explanatory nor unambiguous. I expect this change to be un-done, please comment here if there is disagreement on this point. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
And, after looking around some more, I came to the conclusion that this move was reversible and have done so. Please discuss here before re-attempting. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chelyabinsk meteor. 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) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Category: February 2013 events

Taken from user talk page: Hello FallingGravity!
Thanks for adding Category:February 2013 events in Asia to this article. I wonder though why you've removed Category:February 2013 events? The event was clearly of a "global" nature (at least judging from media coverage and scientific significance), and I believe the old category was adequate. Is there a reason to remove it, or to change it to the more regional "events in Asia"? I suggest to include the article in both categories. --Renerpho (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going off the "location" in the infobox, though including both categories seems reasonable to reflect the global nature of the phenomena (I think the eclipse articles follow a similar pattern). Gravity 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it back, FallingGravity. @Dhtwiki: I see you reverted the edit, maybe this is worth taking to the article talk page. --Renerpho (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit I just reverted was based on the discussion on FallingGravity's user page. I think adding the article to both categories is the best solution, but if you disagree I am happy to discuss it here. --Renerpho (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Heavier than the Eiffel Tower"

does that phrase add anything? I would have thought that most people would not have any feeling for how heavy the Eiffel Tower is in the first place, so I don't see how it adds to understanding. Adpete (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The tower is a massive construction, with a wide recognition across the Earth - this comparison helps the lay person get a grasp of mass of the object.104.169.21.238 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I am totally fine with adding comparisons to aid with understanding, but I agree with Adpete here. The problem is, I don't have any intuition for the mass of the Eiffel tower. It is both a very massive and a very light-weight construction. The point of comparisons like this is to compare not with something that is easily recognised, but with something for which a lay person may have an intuitive understanding. Renerpho (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that comparison to something like the Eiffel Tower is not helpful since most people have no sense of its overall weight. If the comparison was to a car, for example, that might be reasonable, but it would be better just to give the mass/weight with proper unit conversions and leave it at that. --Masem (t) 15:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I take that as a consensus, and have removed it. Adpete (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Chelyabinsk meteor: Difference between revisions Add topic