This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
101955 Bennu 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Spaceflight Now, 31 Jan 2019 states the density of Bennu has been determined to be 1.2 (20% higher than water in their words). Assuming the overall shape is a double cone, the density & physical dimensions lead to a mass estimate of 40 million tons, which is lower than the two current figures in the sidebar. If someone could find a direct citation to a current mass estimate, that would be nice. Danielravennest ( talk) 01:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Currently, assorted media are carrying stories about RQ36. They quote an impact probability of "approximately 1 in a thousand". These stories are based an interview and a press release by Maria Eugenia Sansaturio, who is reporting the results from the Milani et al. paper that is already cited in the article. The Milani et al. paper is the primary source, and is more accurate than the sound-bites in the secondary stories - for example, it includes a discussion of the Yarkovsky force on RQ36, which dominates the uncertainty in the object's trajectory.
The radar-derived shape model of RQ36 is still awaiting publication. When it is available, the impact forecast will be significantly improved. Michaelbusch ( talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Something about this new media blitz needs to be included.
Sattmaster (
talk)
23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Why only NASA's information about it? What about the ISRO? They have newer pictures in higher res and would be the latest info about the NEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.162.236 ( talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The link to Yarkovsky effect is repeated four times in this article. Isn't one enough? Should the later three be removed?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Done: by User:Adûnâi -- Hadron137 ( talk) 05:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Reading this, I was baffled that an asteroid whose perihelion lies outside the orbit of Venus is claimed to be more likely to strike Venus than Earth. Looking at the quoted reference, it emerges that there is no paradox; hitting Earth is (far) more likely in the next couple hundred years; hitting Venus is more likely over the next 300 million years. I put in a quote from the reference source to make this distinction clear and hope this will be ok. Opus33 ( talk) 23:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, not again. The 'hydroxyl' diction, versus water, is arbitrary since the two interconvert- 4OH -> 2H2O + O2, as hydroxyl is unstable.
In any case, citing hydroxyl per se is not defensible. Serpentinites ("phyllosilicate rock") retain hydroxyl (OH), but smectites ("clay") retain literal H2O. Carbonates generally retain OH, sulfates generally retain literal H20. I can go on.
The project's own scientists use the term water, not hydroxyl. So does the text's own CITED REFERENCE. The scientists win, versus a pop sci website. The logical conclusion is that the use of "hydroxyl" on Bennu (when it is not a term in common, nonspecialist usage) is a deliberate obfuscation.
64.134.243.23 ( talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qaPHXXZTkAU
~3um band- not a line, not a single spectral feature at all- includes both mineralogical absorptions and that of _water_itself_. Clay minerals (smectites not serpentinites, but both found together in carbonaceous objects) retain actual H2O _in_the_present_, because they metamorph back to parent silicates when dehydrated- yet they’re still clay today, and wet as clay.
Not agreed- "Science is true whether you believe it or not" 65.246.72.82 ( talk) 22:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
64.134.243.23 ( talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
64.134.243.23 ( talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"Definition of hydrated mineral as in our WP article: Mineral hydration is..." Look folks, circular evidence! That WP is the province of, at its most charitable, computer experts, and at worst,
Dunning-Kruger-unaware fanboys is not our problem. Signed, me and the OSIRIS-REx staffers I eat and drink with. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.134.100.89 (
talk)
23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
"beyond the scope of this article" Let's see... composition (giving classification and implying origin), meteorite-asteroid parentage, and greater Solar System context, as given by three separate OSIRIS-REx investigators _including the principal investigator_. It seems to me that YOU are beyond the scope of your authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
If the spectrometers cannot tell the difference of hydroxyl bonded to minerals or water, it does not mean that hydroxyl radical is identical to water and that the dry rock becomes under a semantic game, "water-rich". Again, the PI stated that the parent body may have had water. Currently, Benu doesn't (no liquid water, no water ice, no water vapor.} We are glad it can detect -OH bound to minerals. The best they could state on Tuesday's conference was the finding of magnetite, which supports that its parent body had water at some point in the ancient past. This is akin of quoting a biologist talk about "junk DNA" and then you writing about how cells are full of junk. Semantic games are not beneficial in Wikipedia. Rowan Forest ( talk) 04:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please review: WP:SYNTHESIS. And for the fourth time: Laureta's full quote is: "That means that at some point, Bennu's rocky material interacted with water. The asteroid doesn't have free flowing water or ice, but likely broke off from a larger asteroid that did." - Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is over. "Controversial" statements in the article are amply cited using reliable sources, in fact, cited to a fault (see above). This is because Bennu's water content is NOT CONTROVERSIAL within our field. Rowan Forest is clearly not in our field, attempting to substitute [[Argumentum ad populum |outside information]], and openly [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others |deleting cited additions]] instead of tagging as appropriate and directed by WP policy. Instead, Rowan Forest has used circular citation and false consensus from terrestrial perceptions, which do not apply to off-Earth research, and even some on-earth applications, besides their intersection in meteoritics. The standard of "liquid or ice" is a fabricated notion, which he has never cited, and likely never will as our field does not include his notions (except by chance).
Amply-cited text is amply cited, and will remain. 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
In plain English: in common usage, potential ionic precursors are not water (ice, liquid, nor vapor). They found hydrated silicates, that is amply referenced WITHOUT WP:synthesis on how it could be processed. The fact that it can be heated to break the hydroxyl bonds and re-form water is not disputed. Can the hydrates be processed to make ~20% water by weight? Yes. Its water potential is not the same as its presence. In Wikipedia, we have to write science articles so that someone with a high school diploma can understand the general idea. Wikipedia editors strive to be mindful of IUPAC's advice and nomenclature but do not follow this advice rigidly, especially when the advice deviates from mainstream usage ( WP:Manual of Style/Chemistry). "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." ( WP:Manual of Style) If the mission found hydrated minerals, we report hydrated minerals, not water. If hydrated minerals can be processed to extract ions to produce water, that is a subject that can be explained elsewhere. Your adding 18,000 bytes on the chemistry of hydrates does not serve. Thank you for your participation. Rowan Forest ( talk) 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is still over. "Controversial" statements in the article are amply cited using reliable sources, in fact, cited to a fault (see above). This is because Bennu's water content is NOT CONTROVERSIAL within our field. Rowan Forest is clearly not in our field, attempting to substitute [[Argumentum ad populum |outside information]], and openly [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others |deleting cited additions]] instead of tagging, as appropriate and directed by WP policy. Instead, Rowan Forest has used circular citation ("Perhaps a better word to explain the find in this article would be hydrated minerals (Mineral hydration) instead of "hydroxyl". Hydrated minerals are not "wet minerals". Agreed?") and false consensus from terrestrial perceptions, which do not apply to off-Earth research, and even some on-earth applications, besides their intersection in meteoritics. The standard of "liquid or ice", specified by you above as "free flowing water or ice" is a fabricated notion, which Rowan Forest has never cited, and likely never will as our field does not include his notions (except by chance).
Amply-cited text is amply cited, and will remain. I can (and have) provided peer-reviewed citations in excess, and can do so again, and can draw upon my field for yet more. You (Rowan Forest) have yet to provide a single, high-standard citation that does not, in fact, align with the consensus of the field, which is that a subset of meteorites- and thus, their parent asteroids (now in determination)- are, quote, water-rich. Because, knowing multiple processes and systems, not facts to memorize without Solar System context, our consensus of water-rich is not that of the person on the street. 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Copied from " User talk:Drbogdan#101955 Bennu"
-- 101955 Bennu --The geochemistry of space (and off-Earth, and in the mantle for that matter) is admittedly esoteric and less accessible. Therefore I have taken great effort to provide numerous, peer-reviewed and consistent citations for all "claims" (in the context of WP, that is). I have even been called upon to limit these extensive citations, as you can see from the article's history and talk pages. However, the net result still stands: Solar System hydrogeochemistry, odd as it may look to the uninitiated, is not in dispute. A side issue is that OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa 2 are operating as fast or faster than the peer-review process, and sometimes more pedestrian citations are included out of expediency. In between are conference proceedings.
You appear to be versed in peer-reviewed journals. If you have access to, e.g., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Space Science Reviews, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, EPS, JGR, etc., then it's simply a matter of you reading the listed citations. I have included pointers/blurbs in my cites to make this reading less tedious. If you do not have official access, many of the journal papers cited are nonetheless open access, if nothing else by chance. You may have sufficient luck verifying citations this way. If you do not have the time or inclination to actually check my citations (as Rowan Forest apparently feels), then what exactly do you propose to resolve this issue? A highly-technical article is served by highly-technical citations, not by assumption of high competence by editors who did not, will not, and maybe cannot check the citations given.
If you think the solution is for me to educate all current and lurking WP editors, I feel I have already done so by providing more than ample citations. That's the point of literature search, avoidance of duplicated effort. I do not feel it is my responsibility to rewrite papers for the convenience of all current and lurking- I had already begun doing this, and Rowan Forest won't grasp that, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 02:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - seems best to add these comments to the "Talk:101955 Bennu" talk-page - in order - to sort out the related issues about the " 101955 Bennu" article - and - to find an agreeable way to improve the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Parentage (academic or literal) of CI and CM meteorites is relevant, well-cited, and reliably so, by multiple OSIRIS-REx scientists. Yet Rowan Forest deleted it anyway. So, too, are the storage mechanisms within those meteorites, which brings up a deeper issue:
"The asteroid could potentially be mined to process the phyllosilicate into water." -Rowan Forest
Scientists don't turn to Arguments from consequences for a very simple reason... they're scientists, not engineers, prospectors, etc. The field is interested in process and system, origin and history. Dante threw out the "mining" quip in the Dec. 10 press conference because he's an engaging public speaker, better than most would expect from a scientist, and better than most situations demand; we thank him for it. Yet Dante posted "water-rich" in that same press conference, in writing, left up for the world to see, just as Beth Clark gets it in her Dec. 13 interview. Water that is exposed to the Sun (and therefore, to telescopes) is photolyzed to -OH by Solar UV, far stronger than terrestrial UV. This is a fundamental principle of the inner Solar System; I shouldn't need to cite it, but I can if necessary. Hence, Beth Clark refers to water, via visible -OH; no water has been nor should be expected at this point. Only upon sample return (as OREx doesn't have Haya2's SCIM) would water be clearly visible- in situ, not in telescopes. I have already explained as much as I need to; if this still isn't comprehensible, I am no longer responsible for lack of comprehension.
And yes, phyllosilicates contain water. CIs are ~40-45% saponite (Ca0.25(Mg,Fe)3((Si,Al)4O10)(OH)2·n(H2O)); CMs contain far less saponite but minor gypsum/basanite (CaSO4·xH2O) and vermiculite (·4H2O). The requirement for water to be some sort of liquid or fluid was a complete surprise to me when I came upon it- in WP only, which means it's been conjured by editors. Again, the utility of the water is not the task of scientists, but left to others. However, if it's liquid or fluid you want, meteorites demonstrate that too- in mesoporous/nanoporous fluids and adhered water. Yet Rowan Forest deleted that cited addition, too. 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Blow your nose and have a nap. Rowan Forest ( talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In 2060 and 2135, can Bennu be seen with the naked eye and/or with binoculars and will it look like an asteroid? 212.186.0.174 ( talk) 06:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
An object with the dimensions of the table is incompatible with the stated radii. How can it be of 282.37 × 268.05 × 249.25±0.06 meters and, at the same time, have an equatorial radius of 282.37±0.06 m and a polar radius of 249.25±0.06 m? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.30.106 ( talk) 20:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Risk-listed asteroids are asteroids with KNOWN potential impact dates as listed at Sentry and esa. Potentially hazardous asteroids are (for the majority of objects) a generic category of asteroids that could evolve to be a threat to Earth over next Millennium or so. -- Kheider ( talk) 22:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:BennuAsteroid.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 20, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-20. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
101955 Bennu is a carbonaceous asteroid discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research project in 1999. Bennu has a roughly spheroidal shape, an effective diameter of about 484 m (1,588 ft), and a rough, boulder-strewn surface. It is a potentially hazardous object, with a cumulative 1-in-2,700 chance of impacting Earth between 2175 and 2199. It is named after the Bennu, an ancient Egyptian bird deity associated with the Sun, creation, and rebirth. This mosaic image of Bennu consists of twelve PolyCam images taken by NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft from a range of 24 km (15 mi). The primary goal of the mission is to collect a sample from the asteroid's surface, which is scheduled to take place on October 20, 2020, and return the sample to Earth for analysis. Photograph credit: NASA / OSIRIS-REx
Recently featured:
|
Today on NASA TV during the TAG sample-gathering,they said something about being completely surprised by the rocky surface of Bennu, when the thermal signature from Earth made them think it was sandy. I expected details here, but see none offhand. What's the story? It includes both scientific learnings, and a great recovery by NASA. ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 02:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Concerning the "Animation of 101955 Bennu's orbit around Earth 2128–2138". Doesn't that seem to indicate that Bennu orbits the Earth, thus making it a moon of the Earth? Should it read "101955 Bennu's orbit relative to the Earth"? 2601:280:4900:54F0:8CDB:BE7E:76E2:327A ( talk) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Rather than start a new section, I'll post my question here. From this layman's perspective, when I read that the latest mission's spacecraft had been "orbiting" the asteroid, and then I read it's something like 500 meters in diameter, my again layman's understanding of orbiting means that the speed of the spacecraft is in balance with the gravity of the object it is orbiting. But then it seems to me that a 500 meter asteroid isn't going to have any gravity at all, so then how does a spacecraft "orbit" it? So I came to this Wikipedia Article to get some sense, and did not see any mention of the asteroid's gravity and/or how a spacecraft might orbit it, or if that is even the correct term to describe what the spacecraft did. If possible, please try to improve the article so that there is some explanation as to how a spacecraft can "orbit" an object in space that has almost no gravitational pull. Or does it. Thanks in advance. 68.206.249.124 ( talk) 23:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
101955 Bennu 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Spaceflight Now, 31 Jan 2019 states the density of Bennu has been determined to be 1.2 (20% higher than water in their words). Assuming the overall shape is a double cone, the density & physical dimensions lead to a mass estimate of 40 million tons, which is lower than the two current figures in the sidebar. If someone could find a direct citation to a current mass estimate, that would be nice. Danielravennest ( talk) 01:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Currently, assorted media are carrying stories about RQ36. They quote an impact probability of "approximately 1 in a thousand". These stories are based an interview and a press release by Maria Eugenia Sansaturio, who is reporting the results from the Milani et al. paper that is already cited in the article. The Milani et al. paper is the primary source, and is more accurate than the sound-bites in the secondary stories - for example, it includes a discussion of the Yarkovsky force on RQ36, which dominates the uncertainty in the object's trajectory.
The radar-derived shape model of RQ36 is still awaiting publication. When it is available, the impact forecast will be significantly improved. Michaelbusch ( talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Something about this new media blitz needs to be included.
Sattmaster (
talk)
23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Why only NASA's information about it? What about the ISRO? They have newer pictures in higher res and would be the latest info about the NEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.162.236 ( talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The link to Yarkovsky effect is repeated four times in this article. Isn't one enough? Should the later three be removed?-- Adûnâi ( talk) 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Done: by User:Adûnâi -- Hadron137 ( talk) 05:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Reading this, I was baffled that an asteroid whose perihelion lies outside the orbit of Venus is claimed to be more likely to strike Venus than Earth. Looking at the quoted reference, it emerges that there is no paradox; hitting Earth is (far) more likely in the next couple hundred years; hitting Venus is more likely over the next 300 million years. I put in a quote from the reference source to make this distinction clear and hope this will be ok. Opus33 ( talk) 23:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, not again. The 'hydroxyl' diction, versus water, is arbitrary since the two interconvert- 4OH -> 2H2O + O2, as hydroxyl is unstable.
In any case, citing hydroxyl per se is not defensible. Serpentinites ("phyllosilicate rock") retain hydroxyl (OH), but smectites ("clay") retain literal H2O. Carbonates generally retain OH, sulfates generally retain literal H20. I can go on.
The project's own scientists use the term water, not hydroxyl. So does the text's own CITED REFERENCE. The scientists win, versus a pop sci website. The logical conclusion is that the use of "hydroxyl" on Bennu (when it is not a term in common, nonspecialist usage) is a deliberate obfuscation.
64.134.243.23 ( talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qaPHXXZTkAU
~3um band- not a line, not a single spectral feature at all- includes both mineralogical absorptions and that of _water_itself_. Clay minerals (smectites not serpentinites, but both found together in carbonaceous objects) retain actual H2O _in_the_present_, because they metamorph back to parent silicates when dehydrated- yet they’re still clay today, and wet as clay.
Not agreed- "Science is true whether you believe it or not" 65.246.72.82 ( talk) 22:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
64.134.243.23 ( talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
64.134.243.23 ( talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"Definition of hydrated mineral as in our WP article: Mineral hydration is..." Look folks, circular evidence! That WP is the province of, at its most charitable, computer experts, and at worst,
Dunning-Kruger-unaware fanboys is not our problem. Signed, me and the OSIRIS-REx staffers I eat and drink with. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.134.100.89 (
talk)
23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
"beyond the scope of this article" Let's see... composition (giving classification and implying origin), meteorite-asteroid parentage, and greater Solar System context, as given by three separate OSIRIS-REx investigators _including the principal investigator_. It seems to me that YOU are beyond the scope of your authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
If the spectrometers cannot tell the difference of hydroxyl bonded to minerals or water, it does not mean that hydroxyl radical is identical to water and that the dry rock becomes under a semantic game, "water-rich". Again, the PI stated that the parent body may have had water. Currently, Benu doesn't (no liquid water, no water ice, no water vapor.} We are glad it can detect -OH bound to minerals. The best they could state on Tuesday's conference was the finding of magnetite, which supports that its parent body had water at some point in the ancient past. This is akin of quoting a biologist talk about "junk DNA" and then you writing about how cells are full of junk. Semantic games are not beneficial in Wikipedia. Rowan Forest ( talk) 04:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please review: WP:SYNTHESIS. And for the fourth time: Laureta's full quote is: "That means that at some point, Bennu's rocky material interacted with water. The asteroid doesn't have free flowing water or ice, but likely broke off from a larger asteroid that did." - Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is over. "Controversial" statements in the article are amply cited using reliable sources, in fact, cited to a fault (see above). This is because Bennu's water content is NOT CONTROVERSIAL within our field. Rowan Forest is clearly not in our field, attempting to substitute [[Argumentum ad populum |outside information]], and openly [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others |deleting cited additions]] instead of tagging as appropriate and directed by WP policy. Instead, Rowan Forest has used circular citation and false consensus from terrestrial perceptions, which do not apply to off-Earth research, and even some on-earth applications, besides their intersection in meteoritics. The standard of "liquid or ice" is a fabricated notion, which he has never cited, and likely never will as our field does not include his notions (except by chance).
Amply-cited text is amply cited, and will remain. 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
In plain English: in common usage, potential ionic precursors are not water (ice, liquid, nor vapor). They found hydrated silicates, that is amply referenced WITHOUT WP:synthesis on how it could be processed. The fact that it can be heated to break the hydroxyl bonds and re-form water is not disputed. Can the hydrates be processed to make ~20% water by weight? Yes. Its water potential is not the same as its presence. In Wikipedia, we have to write science articles so that someone with a high school diploma can understand the general idea. Wikipedia editors strive to be mindful of IUPAC's advice and nomenclature but do not follow this advice rigidly, especially when the advice deviates from mainstream usage ( WP:Manual of Style/Chemistry). "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." ( WP:Manual of Style) If the mission found hydrated minerals, we report hydrated minerals, not water. If hydrated minerals can be processed to extract ions to produce water, that is a subject that can be explained elsewhere. Your adding 18,000 bytes on the chemistry of hydrates does not serve. Thank you for your participation. Rowan Forest ( talk) 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is still over. "Controversial" statements in the article are amply cited using reliable sources, in fact, cited to a fault (see above). This is because Bennu's water content is NOT CONTROVERSIAL within our field. Rowan Forest is clearly not in our field, attempting to substitute [[Argumentum ad populum |outside information]], and openly [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others |deleting cited additions]] instead of tagging, as appropriate and directed by WP policy. Instead, Rowan Forest has used circular citation ("Perhaps a better word to explain the find in this article would be hydrated minerals (Mineral hydration) instead of "hydroxyl". Hydrated minerals are not "wet minerals". Agreed?") and false consensus from terrestrial perceptions, which do not apply to off-Earth research, and even some on-earth applications, besides their intersection in meteoritics. The standard of "liquid or ice", specified by you above as "free flowing water or ice" is a fabricated notion, which Rowan Forest has never cited, and likely never will as our field does not include his notions (except by chance).
Amply-cited text is amply cited, and will remain. I can (and have) provided peer-reviewed citations in excess, and can do so again, and can draw upon my field for yet more. You (Rowan Forest) have yet to provide a single, high-standard citation that does not, in fact, align with the consensus of the field, which is that a subset of meteorites- and thus, their parent asteroids (now in determination)- are, quote, water-rich. Because, knowing multiple processes and systems, not facts to memorize without Solar System context, our consensus of water-rich is not that of the person on the street. 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Copied from " User talk:Drbogdan#101955 Bennu"
-- 101955 Bennu --The geochemistry of space (and off-Earth, and in the mantle for that matter) is admittedly esoteric and less accessible. Therefore I have taken great effort to provide numerous, peer-reviewed and consistent citations for all "claims" (in the context of WP, that is). I have even been called upon to limit these extensive citations, as you can see from the article's history and talk pages. However, the net result still stands: Solar System hydrogeochemistry, odd as it may look to the uninitiated, is not in dispute. A side issue is that OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa 2 are operating as fast or faster than the peer-review process, and sometimes more pedestrian citations are included out of expediency. In between are conference proceedings.
You appear to be versed in peer-reviewed journals. If you have access to, e.g., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Space Science Reviews, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, EPS, JGR, etc., then it's simply a matter of you reading the listed citations. I have included pointers/blurbs in my cites to make this reading less tedious. If you do not have official access, many of the journal papers cited are nonetheless open access, if nothing else by chance. You may have sufficient luck verifying citations this way. If you do not have the time or inclination to actually check my citations (as Rowan Forest apparently feels), then what exactly do you propose to resolve this issue? A highly-technical article is served by highly-technical citations, not by assumption of high competence by editors who did not, will not, and maybe cannot check the citations given.
If you think the solution is for me to educate all current and lurking WP editors, I feel I have already done so by providing more than ample citations. That's the point of literature search, avoidance of duplicated effort. I do not feel it is my responsibility to rewrite papers for the convenience of all current and lurking- I had already begun doing this, and Rowan Forest won't grasp that, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 02:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - seems best to add these comments to the "Talk:101955 Bennu" talk-page - in order - to sort out the related issues about the " 101955 Bennu" article - and - to find an agreeable way to improve the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Parentage (academic or literal) of CI and CM meteorites is relevant, well-cited, and reliably so, by multiple OSIRIS-REx scientists. Yet Rowan Forest deleted it anyway. So, too, are the storage mechanisms within those meteorites, which brings up a deeper issue:
"The asteroid could potentially be mined to process the phyllosilicate into water." -Rowan Forest
Scientists don't turn to Arguments from consequences for a very simple reason... they're scientists, not engineers, prospectors, etc. The field is interested in process and system, origin and history. Dante threw out the "mining" quip in the Dec. 10 press conference because he's an engaging public speaker, better than most would expect from a scientist, and better than most situations demand; we thank him for it. Yet Dante posted "water-rich" in that same press conference, in writing, left up for the world to see, just as Beth Clark gets it in her Dec. 13 interview. Water that is exposed to the Sun (and therefore, to telescopes) is photolyzed to -OH by Solar UV, far stronger than terrestrial UV. This is a fundamental principle of the inner Solar System; I shouldn't need to cite it, but I can if necessary. Hence, Beth Clark refers to water, via visible -OH; no water has been nor should be expected at this point. Only upon sample return (as OREx doesn't have Haya2's SCIM) would water be clearly visible- in situ, not in telescopes. I have already explained as much as I need to; if this still isn't comprehensible, I am no longer responsible for lack of comprehension.
And yes, phyllosilicates contain water. CIs are ~40-45% saponite (Ca0.25(Mg,Fe)3((Si,Al)4O10)(OH)2·n(H2O)); CMs contain far less saponite but minor gypsum/basanite (CaSO4·xH2O) and vermiculite (·4H2O). The requirement for water to be some sort of liquid or fluid was a complete surprise to me when I came upon it- in WP only, which means it's been conjured by editors. Again, the utility of the water is not the task of scientists, but left to others. However, if it's liquid or fluid you want, meteorites demonstrate that too- in mesoporous/nanoporous fluids and adhered water. Yet Rowan Forest deleted that cited addition, too. 64.134.100.100 ( talk) 01:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Blow your nose and have a nap. Rowan Forest ( talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In 2060 and 2135, can Bennu be seen with the naked eye and/or with binoculars and will it look like an asteroid? 212.186.0.174 ( talk) 06:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
An object with the dimensions of the table is incompatible with the stated radii. How can it be of 282.37 × 268.05 × 249.25±0.06 meters and, at the same time, have an equatorial radius of 282.37±0.06 m and a polar radius of 249.25±0.06 m? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.30.106 ( talk) 20:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Risk-listed asteroids are asteroids with KNOWN potential impact dates as listed at Sentry and esa. Potentially hazardous asteroids are (for the majority of objects) a generic category of asteroids that could evolve to be a threat to Earth over next Millennium or so. -- Kheider ( talk) 22:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:BennuAsteroid.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 20, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-20. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
101955 Bennu is a carbonaceous asteroid discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research project in 1999. Bennu has a roughly spheroidal shape, an effective diameter of about 484 m (1,588 ft), and a rough, boulder-strewn surface. It is a potentially hazardous object, with a cumulative 1-in-2,700 chance of impacting Earth between 2175 and 2199. It is named after the Bennu, an ancient Egyptian bird deity associated with the Sun, creation, and rebirth. This mosaic image of Bennu consists of twelve PolyCam images taken by NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft from a range of 24 km (15 mi). The primary goal of the mission is to collect a sample from the asteroid's surface, which is scheduled to take place on October 20, 2020, and return the sample to Earth for analysis. Photograph credit: NASA / OSIRIS-REx
Recently featured:
|
Today on NASA TV during the TAG sample-gathering,they said something about being completely surprised by the rocky surface of Bennu, when the thermal signature from Earth made them think it was sandy. I expected details here, but see none offhand. What's the story? It includes both scientific learnings, and a great recovery by NASA. ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 02:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Concerning the "Animation of 101955 Bennu's orbit around Earth 2128–2138". Doesn't that seem to indicate that Bennu orbits the Earth, thus making it a moon of the Earth? Should it read "101955 Bennu's orbit relative to the Earth"? 2601:280:4900:54F0:8CDB:BE7E:76E2:327A ( talk) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Rather than start a new section, I'll post my question here. From this layman's perspective, when I read that the latest mission's spacecraft had been "orbiting" the asteroid, and then I read it's something like 500 meters in diameter, my again layman's understanding of orbiting means that the speed of the spacecraft is in balance with the gravity of the object it is orbiting. But then it seems to me that a 500 meter asteroid isn't going to have any gravity at all, so then how does a spacecraft "orbit" it? So I came to this Wikipedia Article to get some sense, and did not see any mention of the asteroid's gravity and/or how a spacecraft might orbit it, or if that is even the correct term to describe what the spacecraft did. If possible, please try to improve the article so that there is some explanation as to how a spacecraft can "orbit" an object in space that has almost no gravitational pull. Or does it. Thanks in advance. 68.206.249.124 ( talk) 23:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)