Talk:367943 Duende

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance 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).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: February 10 to 16, 2013

Describing impact as a mass the size of one to seven ships as large as the Titanic when fully loaded hitting the earth at 27,000 miles per hour is some horrible sci-fi writing and must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.39.193 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that description. However, brace yourself for all sorts of trouble from doomsayers and conspiracy believers. We have another "Elenin" on our hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildespace (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find these asteroid articles confusing. I think there should be, first, just the flyby distance above the earth's surface in km. The same data again in miles, and tiny fractions of an AU, and distances from earth center, are not useful and add clutter. The medieval custom among news reporters to write about astronomy in miles should not be encouraged or facilitated.

Second, there should be a standard history format. Put events in clean prose, in chronological order (I always like "big endian" dates), like this:

2012 Feb 23 - Duende was discovered by the Observatorio Astronómico de La Sagra in Spain, operated remotely by astronomers in Mallorca.

2013 Jan 9 - Duende was observed again by Las Campanas Observatory, increasing the observation arc from 79 days to 321 days.

2013 Feb 15 - The unrelated Chelyabinsk meteor arrived 16 hours before Duende.

2013 Feb 15, 19:25 UT - Duende passed 27,743 kilometers above Earth's surface, closer than geosynchronous orbit. It briefly peaked at an apparent magnitude of roughly 7.2, not visible to the naked eye.

2013 Feb 16 to 20 - Goldstone Observatory observed Duende with radar. It is an elongated asteroid with dimensions of 20 by 40 meters, geometric mean 28 meters.

2046 Feb 15 - Duende will pass about 2.2M km from the earth.

2123 Feb 16 - Duende will pass a minimum of 23K km, 750K km nominal, above the earth's surface.

This could then be followed by other details, such as "The 2013 close approach to Earth reduced the orbital period of Duende from 368 days to 317 days, and perturbed it from the Apollo class to the Aten class of near-Earth asteroids." etc. Friendly Person (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How will the close approache on 2/15/2013 alter the asteroid's orbit? I think the gravitational slingshot will accelerate the asteroid. What's about gravitational keyholes? --Zumthie (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013-Feb-15 passage will reduce the orbital period of 2012 DA₁₄ from 366 days to around 316 days. -- Kheider (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Risks," to say "The asteroid will not impact the Earth on February 15, 2013" is a statement of fact before the fact. Unless one is a time traveler, it cannot be known if the asteroid will impact the earth or not. Even if the chances of impact are millions-to-1, there is still a millions-to-1 chance. There's a millions-to-1 chance of winning a lottery, but it happens. A statement such as "Scientists believe there is no chance the asteroid will impact the earth" is much more factual and doesn't tread on the slippery and nonobjective ground of speculation/fortune telling. 67.168.212.213 (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Spud[reply]

The uncertainty in the orbit is known well enough to state, "Its orbit about the sun can bring it no closer to the Earth's surface than 3.2 Earth radii on February 15, 2013." -- Kheider (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now? ~~SA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottauld (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand the probability of 2012 da14 coming close enough to a communications satelite to influence it's orbit and how much of a pertabation the satelite can correct for with it's on board fuel. Comments to storys on the net seem to run toword the extreem, but nobody seems to have any real info. The article that ran in the 2 jan 2013 WSJ page a14 was interesting but lacked detail. -- SFCharlie (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving at a rate of 7.8 km/SECOND (relative to Earth) DA14 is too small to have any detectable effect without impacting the satellite. At that speed a satellite impact would destroy the satellite. Small meteoroids can go undetected passing through geosynchronous orbit and there is no notable history of impacts. -- Kheider (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's not so much the flyby speed - that's never been outside of 7 to 27 km/sec - but the flyby distance. If the asteroid passes 10 meters from the satellite I think it would perturb its orbit a little; Force exerted, F, = G m1 m2 / r^2 and delta V = vector integral( m/F ). Geo's generally carry fuel enough to change orbital position, such as moving a weather satellite over a different part of a continent; and finally, to move them into a safe graveyard orbit. This might fit in the article if it could be compressed down to about 2 words. Friendly Person (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do scientists know the composition of DA14? If so, what is the asteroid made of and how do they know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.2.149.193 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard much more than "stoney". Perhaps we'll know more after further radar observation next week.--RadioFan (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A NASA sourced image of 2012 DA14 passing Earth has been added and removed several times. This infobox generally includes images where available. The orbital diagram is also very important but is specific to the pass in Feb 2013. This object will be back in December and another section will be created for that most likely but the image of the asteroid itself is applicable there as well. This is why the artist's conception of the asteroid (based on optical and radar observations) is most appropriate for the inbox.

I also disagree that this image is "fear porn". It was put out by NASA in press releases explaining that while this will be the closest pass of an object this large, it poses no danger. The image is accurate and depicts the apparent dimension of the Earth as seen from 2012 DA14. --RadioFan (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your art conveys zero information to the reader and gives the reader the impression that the asteroid is huge since there is zero sense of depth. Infobox's use REAL images when they are available. That is not a real image, nor is it based on radar imaging.

• What makes you think the asteroid will be back in December?

• When you reverted my edit, you reverted my corrections to your mistake claiming that the asteroid is currently Aten class.

-- Kheider (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my art, it's NASA's It conveys the shape of the object based on observational data

the orbital period has been calculated to 317 days. as of Feb 1

That was a bit premature but it has been reclassified as Aten class as of the Feb 15, 2013 pass due to orbital changes. You must have missed the updated reference there.--RadioFan (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2012 Feb 9th, DA14 has NEVER been resolved optically or by radar. It has only been seen as a star-like point in the sky.

DA14 will not be perturbed until Feb 15th, so as of 2012 Feb 9th, the orbital period is still 366 days. We should change ALL of that orbital parameters only AFTER the perturbation. -- Kheider (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The period of 317 days (after the close approach) is the period of the orbit around the Sun. So it gains 360/317 - 360/365 = 0.149 degrees per day, so it will take roughly 360/0.149 = 2400+ days for it to catch up to the Earth (assuming it is not perturbed in the meantime). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The orbital elements are always defined at a specific epoch. The article currently uses an epoch of 2012-Sep-30 to define all the parameters which is simply at 2-body solution involving the Sun+asteroid. -- Kheider (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPL's Near Body database is using 2013-Apr-18.--RadioFan (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In roughly ~6 months NASA will use yet a different epoch. The 2012-Sep-30 epoch is more accurate as the "current solution" until Feb 15th. -- Kheider (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That data gives the next close approach to the Earth 6 years from now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close is a relative term. It is next inside the orbit of the moon in 75 years.--RadioFan (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, it won't be back in December of this year. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see. You can partition its motion in 3 stages - (1) original elliptical motion around the sun (2) Hyperbolic motion past the earth (above escape velocity) (3) New elliptical motion around the sun. So the elliptical orbital data from last fall is relatively accurate up to some small number of days when its nearest the earth, and neither before or after elliptic orbit fit can be particularly accurate during that hyperbolic stage. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, after the period is reduced to 317 days, it will be close to a 7:6 resonance with Earth. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the risk section: "The risk is less than one two hundred thousandth of the estimated risk of another similarly sized asteroid impacting Earth during that time period". It would be nice to identify this "similarly sized ateroid", perhaps with a link. Olynickjeff (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be hesitant to add any information on similar objects since specifics were not included in the original reference. We could add a "similar" objects, but it wouldn't be WP:OR .--RadioFan (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at The Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale for more information about the random background risk from undiscovered asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about promoting the name of the "other object" which was incorrect and not the actual name. I hope perhaps some time the object that landed in Russia will have a proper meteor name, though I guess it may not be that important.--Radical Mallard (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain what the "DA" means ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See provisional designation in astronomy. --JorisvS (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

excellent, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.55 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that a Russian scientist explained that the reason an object breaks up entering the earth's atmosphere is that the difference in pressure between the front side and the back side become so great that the object loses its ability to stay in one piece. I've not seen this written anywhere else. Usually the explanation is that it's the heat from friction that causes it to explode. Which is it, and could the correct explanation be included, as it applies to a meteoroid (or meteorite)? JohnClarknew (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In section "risk" the article says "There is a cumulative 0.00000021% risk (1 in 4,700,000) of 2012 DA14 impacting Earth during future passes between 2080 and 2111.[4]" However 0.00000021% would be 1 in 470,000,000 not 1 in 4,700,000. 1 in 4,700,000 would be 0.000021%

When I tried to look up the reference 4 http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2012da14.html, the page was not found. Martinwilke1980 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit on that was 05:46, 15 February 2013. But as expected, DA14 has been removed from the Sentry Risk Table for potential impacts over the next ~100 years. -- Kheider (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence gives figures for the size and mass, with a reference to #4. But #4 is about Goldstone's scheduled observations and I don't see the size and mass there. I think the reference needs to be changed. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstone lists the estimated size of 50 meters. Since DA14 has been removed from the Sentry Risk Table you can no longer see the estimated mass of 190,000 metric tons (based on an absolute magnitude of 24.1) until the WayBack Machine archive becomes more recent. The older WayBack Machine archive from 25 Aug 2012 will show an estimate of 45 meters with a mas of 1.3e+08 kg (based on an absolute magnitude 24.4). But I do not think getting the numbers out-of-sync does the reader much good. I suggest waiting to see if Goldstone comes up with a more reliable size estimate. -- Kheider (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my point was that I didn't see the size and mass estimates in that link. The size is in there but I don't see the mass. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of astrophotos of the crossing, like at [1], none I've seen that are really striking, but it would be nice for something on Wikipedia. APOD had a good movie [2]. Maybe someone will upload their pictures? If I had more time, I'd shoot out some emails and see if anyone wants to share. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I see the commons media has images of the extrapolated orbits of the two asteroids, used at 2013_Russian_meteor_event#Coincidental_asteroid_approach, although asteroids not clearly labeled. File:Orbit_of_2012_DA14_and_Chelyabinsk_meteor_2.jpg Tom Ruen (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs a detailed image. Goldstone was supposed to be doing that, but I haven't seen any images yet. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for Goldstone images as well, but at 28 meters in diameter, even Goldstone imaging will be unimpressive to the public. -- Kheider (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but even if it is something like File:1950DA.jpg it will be a worthwhile addition to the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The movie frames added are interesting, better as actual movie [3], and in both cases at least it shows the asteroid is significantly elongated. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flyby had a huge impact on the orbit of 2012 DA14, shortening its orbital period by 48 days. How does the transfer of energy effect the orbit of Earth? Did it effect Earth's rotation? Is the day now 1 ms longer or shorter than before? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth was probably perturbed by about the width of an atom. The escape velocity from 2012 DA14 (based on a rocky asteroid with a radius of 14 meters) is only 0.014 meters (0.55 in) per second. As a rule of thumb for rocky asteroids, the radius (in km) roughly equals escape velocity (in meters per second). -- Kheider (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News media and scientific debate caused a strong correlation between "2012 DA14" and "Russian meteor event" concepts. The best proof is the traffic peak at the day of the event (2013-02-15):

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/2012_DA14

From the average ~2000 to 65000 (33 times) in one day!

This article can appreciate, and comment in a whole section, this historic media correlation.

--Krauss (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to DA14 making it's closest approach there was wildly unscientific speculation on Feb 15th. The news media loves sensationalism (more than science) because it draws in more readers. -- Kheider (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (!), and I understand that, for explain URL statistics, part of increased page views was by the "Google Doodle effect"[4] that pointed to here, another part is the "natural public interest of correlated concepts or deepening the subject", as show by statistics of other Wikipedia correlated (to the Russian event) articles: compare with Meteoroid, Shock wave statistics. --Krauss (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Views of Apophis also spiked on Feb 15th. Please get a consensus on the talk page that any of this is sufficiently notable to include in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also made a similar comment regarding page views for "shock wave" at Talk:2013 Russian meteor event/Archive 2#Please add LINK at first occurrence of "shock wave". -- Kheider (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A section with a title ~"Correlation with Russian event in the media". Draft-text bellow, suggested by --Krauss (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for "add a subsection":

• to put in a subsection the introductory losted parentesis "(The 2013 Russian meteor event occurred about 16 hours earlier than the asteroid's passing, but is considered unrelated, with a significantly different orbit.)[9][10]".
• to explain amount of OLD-documents and links in the Internet, that was not corrected, but are from "reliable fonts";
• to explain events like "Google Doodle correlating the things";
• to enforce that "there was wildly unscientific speculation on Feb 15th", but not only sensationalism;
• to enforce that it is "considered unrelated, with a significantly different orbit".

• Too much original research. Scientists estimated the orbit of the Russian meteor the day it impacted and there is no scientific debate about a "correlation". -- Kheider (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're right, I edited the draft: not have anything else that might be confused with that kind of statement. Please, check if it is ok. --Krauss (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think Wikipedia:Trivial mentions will apply. Everything that you have written can be summarized as, "One the day of the 2013 Russian meteor event and unrelated close passage of 2012 DA₁₄, the article 2012 DA₁₄ had 349,895 page views." I have added it to Wikipedia:Article traffic jumps. -- Kheider (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Kheider, this is in part your opinion, not the mine (and perhaps neither others)... I think that other people with other words could convince you. The best to decide is to publish it, and wait for others to edit, in the spirit of the NPOV policy. Another option would be edit here (below), without radical cuts, to gradually obtain the ideal text, less biased. Please check also the "rationale" above, explaining your objective objections, if necessary. --Krauss (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The 2013 Russian meteor event occurred about 16 hours earlier than the asteroid's passing. By technical point of view, is considered unrelated, with a significantly different orbit; ^[2][3] but the technical facts were not known at the day of the event, and the suspected correlation generated a big media interest around DA₁₄. As illustred, the interest growed ~33 times in one day.

So, historically, by the coincidental passage days, DA₁₄ and Russian event stay (with a lot of registred historic news) as subjects strongly related in the media coverage.

---

History of edits of the text above:

• first and second edits --Krauss (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• ... working...

Such an addition to the article will violate WP:No original research, WP:Trivial mentions, and WP:UNDUE. The Google animation was removed out of respect for the injured. I see no human source bothering to mention how often this article was viewed on Feb 15th. -- Kheider (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 367943 Duende. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2012da14.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 367943 Duende. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825105330/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2012da14.html to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2012da14.html

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) 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 367943 Duende. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324110432/http://www.oam.es/Asteroid_2012DA14.htm to http://www.oam.es/Asteroid_2012DA14.htm

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) 18:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]