Talk:Asteroid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good article Asteroid has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
WikiProject Astronomy
Portal:Astronomy
 Astronomy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Asteroid is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Asteroid as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or German language Wikipedias.

Contents

[edit] The meaning of Asteroid

Deuar at 25 August has re-written the heading, and defined asteroids as rocky bodies, to be distinguished from the icy bodies further out. While this may be a sensible classification, I do not believe that it has been followed in astronomical literature: i.e. "minor planets" and "asteroids" (and "planetoids") have been used as synonyms, even if the Wikipedia makes a distinction. Burned out comets, the Centaurs, and I think TNO's have been called minor planets or even asteroids. Also if we restrict "asteroid" to the rockies, then we lack a generic name for the icicles. Obviously the IAU has more work to do, but the expose by Deuar seems premature. Waddayathink? Tom Peters 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rmhermen argued under "Merge Asteroids, Minor Planets" that we should make a distinction. I agree that we should, but the fact is that the use of nomenclature up to now does NOT make a distinction between rocky, inner solar system, and icy, outer solar system objects: even within the new size-based class "SSSB" there is no sub-division between inner and outer bodies (although the icy outer DWARF PLANETS do get their own class: Plutonians; while Ceres and other round inner planetoids do not).

I asked Brian G. Marsden, head of the IAU's Minor Planet Center, and he wrote me this (personal communication, quoting explicitly allowed): " The term "minor planet" continues to exist. It is precisely synonymous with "asteroid" and "planetoid"."

And also, when asked whether Ceres still is and Pluto now also is, an asteroid, he wrote: " Given now the definition "dwarf planet" (for want of a better term), clearly applicable to Ceres and Pluto, I don't think we should continue to speak of these objects as "minor planets" (or "asteroids" or "planetoids"), even though they (will) all appear in a single catalogue, as regards their orbits, astrometric observations and names."

So I maintain that the distinction in the Wikipedia between "Minor planets" and "Asteroids", as exemplified by having two lemmata, is an invention of the Wiki authors: and that the two pages should be merged.

Tom Peters 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no Plutonians. Rmhermen 19:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Resolution 6A: "Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects." [1] ; 6B "This category is to be called "plutonian objects." " wasn't approved, but the important point is that a distinct category is recognised and will get a name; I called it "plutonian" for lack of an official name.
Tom Peters 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Asteroids, Minor Planets?

Why are there two articles on Asteroids and Minor planets? The articles say that asteroids are a subclass of minor planets, but I do not believe that such a distinction is consistently made in old or current astronomical literature; besides, there is much overlap between the two articles. I propose to merge these, possibly under Small solar system body. Tom Peters 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet to SSSB, yes, but probably best to keep "asteroid" seperate - the term is going to stay in use, and if nothing else Ceres is still going to be grouped with them. Shimgray | talk | 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
A clear distinction still exists between asteroids and comets, both types of minor planets or, as they are now called, small solar system bodies. Less certain is the classification of Centaurs. Not to mention the large difference between asteroids and small TNOs (now also called SSSBs). Rmhermen 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is a large physical difference between (small) TNO's and proper rocky astroids: but all have been numbered as minor planets and I have not seen asteroids defined as a subclass of minor planets in literature: rather they are synonymous. Tom Peters 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if TNO are not numbered separately - comets are, and so are some Centaurs. So we cannot simply say that they are the same. Rmhermen 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my response under "The meaning of Asteroid". Tom Peters 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't surprise me that the IAU doesn't have a definition of "asteroid" etc. - they've only now gotten around to defining "planet"! However, this doesn't change the simple fact that there are these two large, important, groupings of physically distinct bodies that get called Asteroids and Trans-Neptunian Objects in Wikipedia, as well as a few less prominent groups as well such as Centaurs and others. Then there's also Comets, and I wonder whether the IAU has gotten around to defining them? I suspect it's a grey area as well, especially given the so-called main-belt comets. All these groupings certainly need their own articles - as evidence, let me just point out that over 32K has been written about the asteroids alone! The curent division in Wikipedia presumably comes about because it the most widely held view among people interested in solar system bodies.
In principle, I'm OK with renaming the "asteroid" article to something else like "rocky minor planet" or some such, although I have to say this seems like a pretty cumbersome and distasteful way to do deal with the issue. Perhaps a better way would be to keep the current division we have in Wikipedia, but somewhere in the introductory part of "asteroid", "TNO", etc mention that these are not official or universally accepted definitions. Finally, "minor planet" or "small solar system body", or whatever that article gets renamed to, should be an umbrella grouping that points out the different categories of small bodies without going far into their individual details − that should be left for their individual articles. Deuar 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Deuar, I find your attitude very disturbing. You justify the current status with "The curent division in Wikipedia presumably comes about because it the most widely held view among people interested in solar system bodies". I hold that someone started an article on minor planets and someone else started an article on asteroids, and that the two evolved and cross-pollinated along the way. However, this is not a matter of opinion that requires a NPOV and fair representation of majority and minority opinions. This is about classification and the technical terms used for them. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that its purpose is to describe and explain the meaning of the lemmata as they are used in the real world. In this case, it is the actual use by (professional) astronomers that should be decisive, not some opinion among Wikipedians. Bradler could not be more explicit: "minor planet" and "asteroid" are full synonyms. So we may not have two articles with different content under these two terms. Yes, now that "planet" is (re-)defined, the IAU should come up with a clearer definition of "minor planet" (the preferred term over "asteroid"). Yes, this term indicates several very different types of objects, not all of which have a proper definition or even a proper name. There is a good reason: these objects are discovered by the thousands, and get a designation. What their nature and proper classification is, is usually unknown. In any case, the definition that you wrote on this page that an asteroid is a rocky body and a sub-class of minor planets, is your own invention. It is not a fair representation of current use in astronomy. It is wrong and should be reformulated.
I do agree however on your practical proposals that the various objects deserve their own pages, if only because the current pages get too big. Unfortunately then we'll have to make up some cumbersome title just because there is no generally accepted proper term. But that appears to be just the sad current state of affairs. Tom Peters 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I hope I didn't disturb you too much! :-)
As for the introduction, please feel free to improve it - I won't complain (probably). I had put it in as mostly a stopgap measure, and to do some compacting. You might remember that before we had "An asteroid is a predominantly rocky body that orbits around its star", which did not exclude e.g. the Earth or rocky planets around other stars. This seemed to be glaring and prompted me to do my likely amateurish edits. I personally don't care very much about the actual naming, being more interested in the physical properties of all these bodies, and that the groups do get their own articles whatever the names. Lastly, yeah, of course I agree that professional use takes complete precedence over wikipedia use, but I had the impression that professional use was pretty sloppy itself. I've mostly read journal articles on main-belt asteroids, and there they are predominantly called such (not minor planets); as for the other groups of numbered bodies I'm not familiar enough to say anything useful. Deuar 11:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trojans

There also Mars Trojans

And there is even an Earth "trojan." Discovered just recently, named Cruithne. I think that the term "Trojan" only applies to Jupiter's L5 and L4 asteroids, though, so check that before adding it to the entry.

As I understand it, a Trojan must be in [Langrangian point], but Cruithne is not, or is it? Also found some references to Mars Trojans in the internet. See, for a list of Trojans:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Trojans.html

joao

[edit] Earth-Asteroid collisions

How about the possibility of a collision of an asteroid with the Earth? User:Ed Poor

That would probably be a bad idea. :-O --maveric149


[edit] Asteroid naming conventions

I am rethinking my previous comments in support of naming asteroids using just the most common name first and then sorting out naming conflicts later. As it is, many articles and redirects will be directed to the most common name if an article is made with that name. Then when the inevitable renaming comes, all those links will be either broken or linked to the wrong article - what an unnecessary mess. How about we establish some kind of naming convention for asteroids? I suggest either following the type of naming convention found in the planets articles (e.g. Eros (asteroid)) or we use catalogue numbers (e.g. 433 Eros). I personally prefer using the second method since it is more precise and easier to link to in another article. Then the Eros article can be about the god - which makes sense, since all other uses of the word "Eros" are derived from the name of the god. A couple of links at the bottom of that article can then be added to the other uses of the word. Any other suggestions? --maveric149

I'm not wedded to any particular method, but your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. As long as the "common name" articles either disambiguate or redirect directly to the fancy technical name, there shouldn't be a problem; it'll still be easy to link to asteroids without having to always look up the technical name for [[433 Eros|Eros]]ing. Bryan Derksen

I am convinced that the number preceeding the name of an asteroid needs to be between parentheses. This is the naming convention in the Dictionary of Minor Planet Names by Lutz D. Schmadel and on the website of the Minor Planet Center (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/Ephemerides/Bright/2003/00021.html). Does anyone have information that proves the contrary ? If not, this should be changed, but I am not active on the English wikipedia. - Tom. 81.240.23.198 18:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right, the formal naming convention does require the parentheses. Dropping them lightens the text (they are kept for asteroids numbered but unnamed, because otherwise the name doesn't parse correctly). I have nothing against retrofitting them in, but the task would be immense.
Urhixidur 18:31, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Which asteroid is the picture of? --rmhermen

Please give the photograph a proper label, or delete it. Sheesh. —Steven G. Johnson

[edit] Quaoar

If Quaoar is a minor planet (in the Kuiper Belt), shouldn't it be listed above Ceres in the table of largest asteroids? -- hike395 04:37 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Its all semantics, some say Quaoar is a planet, others say its a planetesimal, others say its a comet core, others say its a Kuiper belt object, and others say its an asteroid - i say we redirect them all to space debris Pizza Puzzle
I would dispute any such move and merge. Whether you think the categories are meaningful or not, they are nonetheless used by astronomers worldwide. Semantics are meaningful. Bryan
Try adjusting your sarcasm filter; its clearly broken. Pizza Puzzle

So, bringing the discussion back to the topic: should Quaoar be listed as the largest asteroid or not? If asteroid is a standalone concept (say, an undifferentiated body orbiting a star) and if Quaoar fits the definition, then we should put it first. But, it asteroid is a relative concept (like hill is to mountain), then we don't have lists of the tallest hills in the world, so the whole table of largest asteroids is kind of silly.

I can see the argument both ways -- hike395

I've only heard Quaoar described as a Kuiper belt object. Also asteroids are often distinguished from other sub-planetary bodies by being rocky but most of the time an asteroid is called an asteroid if any part of its orbit is within the orbit of Jupiter and it is not a comet, moon (or meteoroid - not sure where the cut off is though - it may be a mountain/hill thing). Comets are composed of a very large percentage of volatiles. However, to complicate the picture there are burned out comets which have lost most of their volatiles that are now called asteroids (it still doesn't break the definition). Kuiper belt objects are so named because of their position and not really based on their composition (although due to their distance from the sun and the fact that so much damn water and other volatiles were created from our proto-planetary disk, it is thought that these objects have a high percentage of volatiles - but I haven't heard about any spectral studies to back this up though). That knowledge is from my Geology of the Planets class I took a few years back and the class textbook Moons and Planets, Fourth Edition, William K. Hartmann, (Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1999) ISBN 0-534-54630-7 pages 159-161. IIRC many of the non-comet objects in between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune have a messed up and uncertain classification (although comets at that distance won't have tails so it is kind of hard to distinguish them from more rocky bodies, again IIRC). --mav 06:44 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)~
OK, so last night I thought: the IAU should have figured this all out, right? Nope. There is no official IAU definition for a planet! People are still quibbling about it. So, some people same Quaoar is a planet, some say an asteroid, and some say a KBO (Kuiper Belt Object). What a mess. This is probably what Pizza Puzzle was alluding to, above.
This definitional mess certainly casts doubt on the table of largest asteroids. I've got an idea: I'll change the header to say "Table of Largest Asteroids inside the orbit of Jupiter" and then it will be correct. -- hike395
Actually, the IAU does have a definition for what planets are, at least within the solar system; planets are any of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. There's a lot of debate over how to classify extrasolar planets, especially with brown dwarf stars in the picture, but they're a recent discovery so confusion is understandable.
As for renaming the table, I object. When I first created it I used a list of "biggest asteroids" from an astronomy book that did not give their orbital diameters, and I think a few others may have been added from other sources since then as well. Do you know for a fact whether all of those asteroids really are within the orbit of Jupiter? And even if they are, Jupiter's orbit is not part of any definition of asteroid that I'm aware of. What if we discover a big asteroid between Jupiter and Saturn? Bryan

Ah but the IAU isnt a definitive source either, some respectable sources now say that Pluto isn't a planet, but rather it is a Kuipter Belt object. There isn't a definitive definition, but certainly the spirit of the list is to refer to those relatively small rocky things that lie mostly between mars and jupiter. Pizza Puzzle

Bryan -- The IAU has an enumerated list of solar planets, but that's not what I would call a definition. The lack of definition definitely affects the status of Quaoar, and hence the table: should Quaoar be in it or not? See [2][3] for some of the controversy.
If Quaoar is not a planet, it might not still be an asteroid; Kuiper belt objects seem to be considered a class of their own based on what I've read. For now, perhaps a similar table to the "biggest asteroids" one covering the "biggest KBOs" could be put over in the KBO article. I'll start putting one together, in fact. If they ever end up being merged, it should be fairly straightforward to do so. Bryan
And, yes, I do know that the entire list in within Jupiter. I knew it from the discovery dates, but if you'd like to check my source for the additional data, please see [4].
Thanks, I can accept the caveat now that I know it is indeed true. :) Bryan
I think the updated table nicely sidesteps the controversy, which can be worked out by the IAU definition wonks and then we can put it in Wikipedia. -- hike395
Oh, and don't worry about discovering a huge asteroid between Jupiter and Saturn: any asteroid > 200 km there would have already been detected by now. It's the Kuiper Belt objects that I'm worried about, and they are much much further away. -- hike395
And then there's 2060 Chiron. It's large (upper estimate= 208km diameter), it's orbit is beyond Saturn. It has an appreciable coma. It's probably a KBO that was kicked into a lower orbit [5]. Is it an asteroid? Should it be listed? This is the sort of mess I'm trying to avoid by restricting the table to list only those asteroids within Jupiter's orbit. I'm not claiming that is the definition of all asteroids, just the definition for this particular, unambiguous, NPOV Wikipedia table. -- hike395
Fortunately, Chiron's size is below the smallest asteroid currently on the table, so that particular mess is very easy to ignore for the immediate future. Perhaps Pizza Puzzle's at-the-time sarcastic suggestion of a space debris article could be useful as a sort of "disambiguation page" which lists asteroids, KBOs, Oort cloud objects, etc. with brief descriptions of how they're distinguished in Wikipedia. Bryan
Oh, just noticed while building that page; Chiron's classified as a Centaur, which appears to fill in the definitional region between the asteroids and Kuiper belt. That also helps remove Chiron from immediate classification messes. Bryan

Check this out: Crazy Names: The Solar System's Nomenclature Wars --mav

Earths 2nd Coorbital [6] my personal fav [7] my site [8]

[edit] Number of asteroids

I changed the number of asteroids to a much larger and much vaguer number. We had listed 9000 discovered which is far too low. The Minor Planet Center mentioned almost 15,000 numbered asteroids in 1999 before most of the computerized searches hit ful swing. NEAT claims over 5,000 new designations and LINEAR over 198,000! But they don't specify what kind of objects are being designated. I presume mostly asteroids. The committee to investigate a replacement for Spaceguard estimates half a million near earth asteroids over 50 meters. Asteroids are first designated, than numbered, than named as they meet better criteria. Can anyone find a recent number of numbered asteroids? Rmhermen 16:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

[9] goes until 79084. andy 16:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Rmhermen 16:30, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Removed from article: Other issues include location and composition. Among the planetoids, the most narrow (and least controversial) definition of "asteriod" uses different terms based on orbit:

  • Asteroids are those minor planets with stable orbit between Mars and Jupiter
  • Centaurs are minor planets between Jupiter and Saturn
  • Trans-Neptunian objects are minor planets past Neptune
  • Comets are objects that have highly ellipical orbits that cross inside the orbit of Neptune

Of these objects, all but the asteroids are predominantly made of ice.

Not only is this not the least controversial, I don't think these definitions are correct. Under this defintion there are no Trojan asteroids, no near earth asteroids, etc. Not all object with highly elliptical orbits that cross within Neptune are comets and some short-period comets don't cross Neptune's orbit. Rmhermen 21:36, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Definition of Centaurs is wrong also as Chiron has a perihelion between Saturn and Neptune. Rmhermen 21:39, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think they all should be called "asteroids" (or minor planets) unless they exhibit cometary activity. Jyril 10:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About asteroid stub articles

Since almost nothing is known about individual asteroids, I think that a complete article needs only

  • data table
  • mention about its location (Main belt etc.) and group/family
  • discoverer and discovery date
  • origin of the name <-- I need help on this
The Dictionary of Minor Planet Names by Lutz D. Schmadel gives this infomation. It's expensive and I don't have a copy. For a few historical asteroids the origin of the name has been lost. -- Curps 11:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If these are the only things known about a particular asteroid, I'd suggest that it doesn't even warrant a stub article; the big tables of asteroids could just be expanded to hold this data instead. Bryan 15:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And if possible,

  • composition and color
  • known stellar occultations
  • shape models
  • pecularities of lightcurve
  • radar observations
  • suspected/known satellites

Naturally spacecraft-visited and other notable asteroids should have much more than that. Jyril 09:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] When did they figure out it was a belt?

The section on asteroid discovery was very interesting to me, and is the reason I came to this article. I wish someone would add information about when the accumulating data on asteroids clearly indicated the existence of the "asteroid belt." Jdavidb 19:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the term "asteroid belt" was first coined in SF, not astronomy, as early as 1931. A search of the NASA ADS Abstracts database finds the first use of "Asteroid Belt" in an abstract in Frank J. Kerr and Fred L. Whipple, Possible explanations of the secular acceleration of PHOBOS and Jupiter V, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5 p. 131 (Oct 1951). Their use of the term seems casual, however, so it was clearly in use before that date (this is more a reflection on the ADS Abstracts database incompleteness than anything else).
Urhixidur 23:39, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Asteroid article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Asteroid}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] French article, please merge

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Asteroid as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Please merge the information from the semi-poorly translated French article at Asteroid/French. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? It looks like it is mainly a translation of this page to begin with. Rmhermen 13:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Rmhermen: everything in the French article is already in here (there is more detail here), except for the fact that Vesta is visible to the naked eye: not sure where to fit that in. -- hike395 15:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed the paragraph about the discovery of Ceres -- I'll fit that in. -- hike395

Looks like I am late but here is my detailed look responding to AllyUnion's message on my talk page:

"One of the things I noticed that was missing from the English article is a notable asteroid section."

No, because we have separated out the List of noteworthy asteroids in our Solar System as well as having the List of asteroids, List of asteroids named after important people, List of asteroids named after places as well as Meanings of asteroid names and Pronunciation of asteroid names.
There should be an article link or a summary none the less. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is, and always has been, a link to these articles. Rmhermen 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

"The other are the images, which are not present."

We have fewer pictures, perhaps that should change. The 3 pictures which differ are already present on the pages of the individual asteroids in better resolution or description. They could be added to the asteroid article. The animated piture is certainly nice.

"If you notice, the information may be the same, it is just that the French article is slightly more detailed." "If you look closely, their section of "The discovery of the first asteroids" is more detailed than the English history section, with minor information missing."

  • Starting from the bottom, the 3 nav bars are directly copied from us. Our links section has the same link and more and we have a see also section that the French version lacks completely. We have a long "Asteroids in fiction and film" that the French article lacks completely also.
  • Our noteworthy asteroids is a separate article. Our spectral classification section is superior in detail and the additional details in the French are treated in separate articles such as the arbitrary addition of only 3 of the 11 additional classes or the class details.
  • Our denomination section needs a little work and probably moved earlier in the article but is more detailed. I see the French article has these details in the Modern methods section.
  • What the French article has under principal groupings we have in the separate article Minor Planets - which subject the French article fails to mention at all. The French article also misidentifies cubewanos and promotes Trojans to an odd level of importance. But perhaps a less detailed description than that found on minor planets could be added to the asteroid article for some of the major groups. Not sure it is necessary though.
  • The French article has no unmannned exploration section, nor any mention of von Zach or Wolf. It does go into more detail about the discovery of 1 Ceres although we have more detail in our Ceres article. Is it useful to expand this on the asteroid article?

"My suggestion of merging was that I see the French article is a Featured article and the English article is not. The objections that may be raised is the layout of the article, and being too brief in certain areas where the French article is not."

It is clear that the standards for featured article are not the same between encyclopedias. I know that the French version would not qualify through our process, especially the "how-to" observation section and no footnotes or references sections. Also I don't believe that our article has ever been proposed for featured status.

This line from the French article is not in our description of asteroid naming. Is it a useful addition? "The appearance receives a designation, made up of the year of discovery, a code of two letters representing the week of discovery, and of a number so more than the one discovered one took place in this week (example: 1998 FJ74). When the orbit of an asteroid is confirmed, it receives a permanent number (example: (26308) 1998 SM165), then, later, a name (example: 1 Ceres)." Rmhermen 15:25, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I factored in the Ceres discovery already --- seemed short enough and relevant. The material in the paragraph immediately above is well-described at provisional designation: I should check to see if we link to that article in a prominent way. -- hike395 15:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My apologize to those who have already worked on this article so much. I do feel that the article could be nominated for a Featured Article status, but it does seem lacking in pictures, and I was attempting to discover what made the French article a Feature Article and what made the English one not one... aside from it not being nominated. However I feel that looking at the French article and seeing the differences between the two is important. Their NPOV and our NPOV are different, and we can learn from something by looking at their article version. After all, if we can make improvements to the English article simply by looking at the French version, why not? -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't beleive NPOV has anything to do with it. And asking us to merge in information that we have already purposely removed to separate articles dosesn't seem productive. I don't believe that the French article would have made it through our Featured article process. It seems very incomplete and unbalanced, lacks a strong lead, and in a couple places is actually incorrect. Rmhermen 23:02, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just moved the article to Talk:Asteroid/French, since it's a "working" document that shouldn't be part of the article namespace. Bryan 22:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, in a similar issue, I've noticed several astronomy related pages using "<<" and ">>" for quotation marks, as used in the French language. Could this have been a relic of bad translation?--Mtnerd 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

It would be nice to have some references from books and such for Wikipedia:Cite sources in order to be nominated as a featured article. At least include a further reading section. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia-specific self-references

Wikipedia drops the parentheses for named asteroids because it makes the text somewhat easier to read, because this convention is already quite common elsewhere, and because, frankly, it would be too much work to convert the existing pages to the formal format... (for unnamed asteroids, Wikipedia does use the parentheses because the risk of confusion is much too great otherwise).

[edit] Updating asteroid information

I noticed that some of the information in

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroid&action=edit&section=2

was not correct and I corrected it. However, I noticed that my correction of "the last numbered and named minor planet was 95959 Covadonga." to "the last numbered and named minor planet was 99905 Jeffgrossman." was immediately reversed and called "vandalism". Here is the reference to my correction:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/NumberedMPs95001.html

Perhaps my "vandalism" could be undone?

68.145.140.118

Someone was too careless checking your edit. No harm was done, looks like you fixed it by yourself. I really recommend you to register, because anonymous editors are often suspicious. And it also gives better anonymity. Now everyone can see your IP address.--Jyril 13:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Listing asteroids by spectral class

I was minding my own business when I came upon D-type asteroid. Instead of linking to a list of D-type asteroids, this page points the reader to Whatlinkshere. IMO, that's a remarkably bad way of doing things. I wanted to start a list or a category or something, but then I found List of asteroids and List of notable asteroids. One of these should probably be updated to include spectral class data. --Smack (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree: Whatlinkshere is Wikipedia:Self-reference, a bad thing. I would suggest using categories, which maintain themselves like Whatlinkshere, but is exportable away from Wikipedia. So, we would need Category:D-type asteroids, etc. -- hike395 04:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whence Minor Planets?

According to NASA ADS:

Urhixidur 13:31, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

[edit] "Earth's Solar system"?

Isn't this phrase redundant? The name of our sun is Sol; the Solar system is Sol's planetary system. No need for "Earth's". kwami 07:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to reserve the phrase Solar System (with capital Ss) as the proper noun for Earth's planetary system, or the planetary system of Sol.Alan R. Fisher 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with spectral classification?

It is claimed that "This has led to great confusion though in that an asteroid's type is not indicative of its composition". That sounds too categorical to me. As far as I know, in most cases the spectrum is quite indicative of composition (but maybe someone has evidence otherwise?). Rather, the confusion (but was it a "great" confusion?) has been because different scientists have used different bits of the spectrum to classify the asteroids. This led to several classification schemes which are not directly comparable and which disagree for many asteroids. Still, by eye about 2/3 asteroids are classified consistently, so the present classification clearly is of some use. Accordingly, i've toned down tha paragraph in the article. Deuar 12:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] INCOMMING !

Found out that there is one that may hit this planet. See this link: Asteroid to HIT this planet in 30 years Also go to the Fortean Times website to see this Article Title:Apohosis to collide with Earth in 2036. Click on this to see the whole thing, in case the provided link is malfunctioning, or nonfunctioning.Martial Law 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Old news, see 99942 Apophis. For a little while back when the asteroid was first discovered (almost a full year ago now) the estimated probability of an impact was 1 in 37, but now it's at 1 in over 5000 due to refinements in measurements. Practically no chance. Bryan 07:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iron mines?

The recent edit suggesting mining asteroids for iron is bizzare. I can understand asteroid mines for some kind of rare mineral (yet to be proposed), but we're not likely to run out of iron any time soon. It's one of the most common elements! Deuar 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be bizarre if you needed iron in orbit. It might be cheaper than lifting it out of Earth's gravity well. kwami 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that makes sense. Guess it didn't ooccur to me that that's what was meant. Duh! Special pleading on my part: maybe it was unclear what was meant? Deuar 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the SF part

The part refering to fictional refrences to asteroids was terrible jumble, with all kinds of items having no logical connection other than all mentioning asteroids, in no logical order - and very many important SF refrences were missing altogther. I have reordered the existing items, by theme rahter than date, and added what I felt needed to be added (quite a bit). I hope the result pleases people who were involved with this article longer than me. Adam Keller 13:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

I like what you've done, but I think you need to include the names of some the major books or films as examples for what you're saying; in other words, if you're making claims about the changing representation of asteroids, you need evidence to back up your claims. Have a look at the 'Mars in Fiction' section of the Mars article to see an example of what I mean (it's not perfect itself, but it makes the basic point). The Singing Badger 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
To clarify what's happened, Adam wrote a super detailed "asteroids in fiction" section, that was great. The problem, I thought, it was far too long. So, I summarized it and put all of the detail in Asteroids in fiction. We should really go back and put references to primary sources (the original books). -- hike395 00:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More references?

Looking back at the FA candidacy for this article, it looked like it failed due to lack of references. I've just added 16 of them.. Does anyone want to add more (and perhaps resubmit to FAC) ? -- hike395 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total mass of asteroid belt

There seem to be two widely differing mass estimates for the whole belt going around:

  • Low: ~2.3&times1021 kg. This appears to have come from the NASA fact sheets [10], and was in use in Wikipedia for a while. I don't know how it was obtained. Anyone have a better reference?
  • High: ~3.2&times1021 kg. This comes from some research by E.V. Pitjeva where she fitted aberrations in the motion of planets (ref #4 in the article, or e.g. [11], and some other papers). This was used in the article at one stage, and is now back.

There was some previous discussion of this at Talk:1 Ceres#Mass Reference. Whichever we choose, there's a pile of articles which say "asteroid 123 Foo comprises x% of the mass in the belt..." etc. that should be standardised.

Any ideas on which to pick, which is more reliable, etc? Deuar 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion at Talk:1 Ceres#Mass Reference.

[edit] support for claim for caption for gif?

Something streaks across the field of view in the animated gif (Image:Asteroid 2004 FH.gif). The caption says that this is a meteor, but it doesn't say that on the NASA site. I can't imagine the asteroid is traveling at an apparent velocity anything like a meteor, so isn't it more likely that the streak is a satellite in high orbit? kwami 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The asteroid is the object dead center moving much slower than the meteor. I don't understand the question. Rmhermen 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do we think it's a meteor? I don't buy it: It appears to be moving much too slowly. If it were a meteor, I wouldn't expect it to appear on more than one frame, but it appears on several. kwami 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You may be correct. You could try asking User:JDG who uploaded it. Rmhermen 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The same question struck me just now, when reading the article. The streak across the image is very obviously a satellite, not a meteor. A meteor streak would be much too fast to process across several time-lapse images. After a quick search, the following web page confirms that the time-lapse is at 15-second intervals, and agrees that the streak is a satellite. http://aida.astronomie.info/displayimage.php?album=lastupby&cat=0&pos=96&uid=32 I will update the image caption appropriately. Arcman 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Asteroid Names

I have paper copies of the Minor Planet Circulars from 1978 to the mid-1990s, with the actual citations for all asteroids named during this time span. As such, they are the 'definitive' citations. I've been adding and correcting some of the entries here and in other sections. How do I prove that I'm using the original sources if they are not accessible with links, because I'm not going to spend a bunch of my time doing this work and then have others question if the citations are correct?

Lowe4091 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:Cite for directions on citing material. (Or just check how some Featured Articles use citations and copy their style.) Rmhermen 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The citations will gradually appear at this URL: http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/~cgi/ShowCitation.COM?num=1234 (they are working backwards from the most recent namings). This will eventually allow a direct link to be put in. For now, I suggest using the style <small>[MPC 1234]</small>. Footnotes or endnotes are not desirable because the pages are already unwieldy. Please also try to sum up who or what the asteroid was named for. For example, simply stating that 4002 Shinagawa is named for "Seishi Shinagawa" is unhelpful. He was presumably described in the MPC, no?
Urhixidur 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued (if need be) on Talk:Meanings of asteroid names. Urhixidur 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marshmallow hitting the Earth at the speed of light

Is it true that it would leave a crater? Hardee67 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary symbols for asteroids

According to [12] there are other minor planet planetary symbols around, we should probably add it into the text (but not infobox) of the various asteroids concerned. 132.205.93.19 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

We'll need to adjust references accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree: the site also says:

Q: Is the term “minor planet” still to be used?

A: The term “minor planet” may still be used. But generally the term “small solar system body” will be preferred.
More significantly, dwarf planets Pluto and Eris recently got minor planet numbers, which obviously (also) makes them minor planets. By inference, Ceres is still minor planet 1 .
Tom Peters 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The IAU's dispatch on the numbering of Pluto and Eris infers that they were added to the minor planets catalogue not because they were considered to be minor planets (now "small solar system bodies"), but instead because Ceres was already on the list - i.e. for consistency. Minor planets are now SSSBs, but dwarf planets are a separate category from SSSBs, so dwarf planets aren't minor planets, I would think. --Ckatzchatspy 08:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"The largest asteroid in the inner solar system is 1 Ceres, with a diameter of 900-1000 km." The question is: does asteroid = small solar system body? There needs to be some edits. Hopquick 03:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ckatz, this is false reasoning. The IAU has said nowhere that (all) minor planets are now SSSBs. The IAU defined the terms "planet" and "dwarf planet". Also they now call SSSB anything that is not a planet, dwarf planet, or meteorite, and it includes comets next to minor planets. Thusfar the IAU hasn't made a closer definition of the older terms minor planet = asteroid = planetoid. For now, minor planet and SSSB are overlapping, not hierarchical categories. But just because Ceres, and now Pluto and Eris, have minor planet numbers, the intention obviously is to classify them as minor planets - which makes sense, since they are planets, be it of the dwarf variety, which is somehwat bigger and rounder than your average minor planet. It also makes sense from observational methodology: a new speck of light is discovered, and it gets a minor planet number. Only after closer investigation it can be classified as a dwarf planet or SSSB (maybe even a distant comet). Tom Peters 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As Ceres is no longer an asteroid, it can't be the largest of them, even if it is still a minor planet. 132.205.44.128 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My perception is that the preference of the editors is to keep this subject on hold, pending some sort of clarification from the IAU. While the website is an official IAU publication, and other IAU web pages have expressed a similar intent, their wording is vague enough to warrant caution before incorporating such a significant change into the astronomy articles. Temporary solutions have included using text such as "largest object in the asteroid belt" instead of "largest asteroid". Hope this helps! --Ckatzchatspy 05:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asteroid origin

IMHO we need something in this article on theories of asteroid origin. As I understand it, the popular theory that the asteroids were formerly a planet which broke up no longer has any serious credence in the astronomical community. I wanted to cite this article as a source on this, but the info isn't here. -- 201.51.215.102 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exponential

The article says the number of asteroids increases exponentially as the size declines. What does this mean? If it means anything at all it probably isn't true: a power law is more likely. If it is true it needs a reference.

Very good point. I can't think of any reference for the power law, so I've just changed it to "rapidly" for now. Deuar 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the text was intended to mean that there are many, many more small asteroids than there are larger ones. much as there are many grains of sand on a beach, and relatively few boulders. If so, it should be rewritten accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy 18:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] asteroid colonization

i am curreently doing research on colonizing asteroids and so far i have come up with a huge amount of money that will be needed to get there. and i am not even finished caculated the costs,i am talking hundereds of millions of dollars. if anyone has any i deas what woould happen if we did colonize an asteroid. please feel free to add any comment


[edit] Creating asteroids

The article does not mention any novels or short stories that propose destroying planets to creat asteroids. L. Neil Smith proposed this in his The Venus Belt, 1985. E. E. Smith had an instance in one of his series of planets being tossed through space warps at one another as the ultimate way to destroy a planet.


[edit] 2036 Asteroid Collision Impact w/ Earth?

Should this information be included within the asteroid article:

"http://www.space.com/news/051103_asteroid_apophis.html" 74.96.186.207 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already a separate page for the asteroid 99942 Apophis. The contents of the space.com article you mention (dated 3 November 2005) appear to be already covered there. However, if you think it adds additional information, you might consider adding it to the list of three space.com links that appear in the "Older articles" part of the "External links" section at 99942 Apophis. —RP88 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/t/Talk%7EAsteroid_d626.html"