This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
99942 Apophis 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 |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated B-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 |
The lead-in section of this article is misleading
It should say has continued to cause concern from December 2004 until recently and then you can use this article http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/10/doomsday-determined-asteroid-apophis-strike-earth/ as evidence for example. Don't belittle the situation. 212.219.231.1 ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No calculations exist of earths magnetic field movement influence about 50km/per annum with North closer to Siberia for determining if NEO's keyholes alter from earlier calculations. Are we back at 2004 concern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plainbandit ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This article just popped up this morning. Anyone interested in editing this article may find it interesting and may be able to incorporate the information. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter 98.215.128.112 ( talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody should add this to the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter I don't know how and don't want to mess it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.127.171 ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Perminov's statements (in the linked interview) indicate that he was not aware of the low probability of impact, and do not reflect any official decisions by Roscomos - so there aren't really any 'Russian plans' yet. I recommend that we leave this out of the article for the moment. Also please remember that this is the talk page for editing the article about Apophis, not a forum for personal opinions (I removed those posts). Michaelbusch ( talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you insist, 76.14.42.191, I'll let it stay. But I have rephrased the text to be more accurate. Note: I do have a personal bias with this article. I am a member of the team that has been refining the impact probability estimates for the past several years. It is very relevant to me that Perminov has apparently been mis-informed about our work. Michaelbusch ( talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Novosti 2009-02-25 ( http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090225/120298367.html) says "In 2012, Apophis will pass close enough to Earth, enabling scientists to more accurately calculate its 2029 orbit." If so, ISTM worth giving date and distance of that pass, and of any other comparatively near passes before the important ones. 82.163.24.100 ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:99942_Apophis/Archive_2#2016_Venus_encounter for more details.. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
The statement of Apophis being the most persistent Stargate villain, although in the article Goa'uld characters in Stargate is stated that Ba'al is the longest-running villain in Stargate show. 195.39.74.163 ( talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Although the Greek name for the Egyptian god may be appropriate, Tholen and Tucker — two of the co-discovers of the asteroid — are reportedly fans of the TV series Stargate SG-1. The show's most persistent villain is an alien also named for the Egyptian god." (Supporting source: Bill Cooke (August 18, 2005). "Asteroid Apophis set for a makeover". Astronomy Magazine.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|urldate=
ignored ( help).)
During the lecture for the 40th Apollo 11 Anniversary, Buzz Aldrin proposed a manned mission, here's a powerpoint slide of his which shows it, if someone wants to add something to the missions section: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/buzz_aldrins_on.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafafa Hots ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"Apophis’s brightness will peak at magnitude 3.3, with a maximum angular speed of 42° per hour. The maximum apparent angular diameter will be ~2 arcseconds, so that it will be barely resolved by telescopes not equipped with adaptive optics."
"On that date, it will become as bright as magnitude 3.3 (visible to the naked eye from rural and some darker suburban areas, visible with binoculars from most locations"
According to the Apparent_magnitude page, the second quote would appear to be the correct one. Does someone want to take a shot at fixing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.3.245 ( talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I rv'ed an showing a 1 in 250,000 chance of a collision. The auto generated link at NEO does show the odds as only 1 in 233,000 (2036-04-13.37; 4.3e-06), but since it is an auto generated page I think it is better if we stay with a human created reference. Besides there have been no new observations of the asteroid since 2008-01-09. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The event of 2036 will occur on Gregorian Easter Sunday (Orthodox Easter Sunday will be a week later) - that seems worth mentioning.
Could there be a table of all nearest approaches this century, with brief details including miss distance, visible magnitude, GMT of pass, terrestrial nadir of pass, with uncertainties?
82.163.24.100 ( talk) 09:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Apophis will then come no closer than about 14 million miles — and more likely miss us by something closer to 35 million miles. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Article includes "An impact several thousand kilometres off the West Coast of the US would produce a devastating tsunami." True, no doubt; but why the parochiality? An impact off North Brazil would devastate the northern coast of South America, the Caribbean, the African coast, etc. Better to say something like "A [deep-]sea impact would devastate coasts up to thousands of kilometres away". 94.30.84.71 ( talk) 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that this image be removed, since it illustrates as possible as event that has now been ruled out. gpeterw ( talk) 12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. According to the impact risk there is a path that covers a 20 hour earth turn rate. (I would think the curved path indicates this is a time lag due to how the earth is turned).
At the speed the earth is revolving around the sun how can predictions of the accuracy they are claiming be made? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.238.250 ( talk) 16:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is used on both elsewhere on this talk page and on the main article, as well as on a few other articles. The filename File:2037 Apophis Path of Risk.jpg indicates that it charts the path of risk in 2037, but the descripion always cites 2036. As 2036 is the greater risk, it seems likely that the file was misnamed. Can anyone confirm the correct year for this image and correct its name or usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparr ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering how the impact calculations would differ if the asteroid Apophis turns out to be a big rubble pile, its center of mass would change during close approach and rotation rate? Also if Apophis turns out to be a rubble pile that breaks apart on close aproach to Earth,How much more of a threat would it be to multible geostationary satellites? Jalanp2 ( talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"In the soon to be released id Software game Rage, the game-play takes place on Earth years after an impact by Apophis.[29]"
Does anyone else think this section is utterly unnecessary (to be kind) in a serious article about Apophis? Rodney420 ( talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In the section Possible impact effects, the article says:
This is incoherent. If the path of risk is only a few miles wide, it cannot possibly cover "most of southern Russia", and indeed not more than a few thousand square miles. Someone with better understanding should correct this. — Dominus ( talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Curious about the dimension info in the Basic Data section. 1) There's a historical statement that there was an estimate of 450 meters at an unspecified time. 2) In the same sentence, an estimate of 350 meters, without stating that this is the most recent and accurate estimate (is it?) 3) In the summary sidebar, an estimate of ~270 meters, with a References link to a JPL database and a suggestion that the most recent observation in the database is 2008.01.09. I was looking for a statement of highest confidence for the dimensions of Apophis relative to most-recent observations, and am not sure whether I found it. Mvsmith ( talk) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Is a Bayesian or some similar statistical method being used to estimate the object's orbit? Is a standardized method being used by all of the observers presenting estimates of the probability of an Earth impact? (What is the apples/oranges potential in the numbers presented?) Are all of the observations obtained to date used to form a population of observations or are the estimates based on the short arcs defined by each of the sets of observations listed in the article? It would be pertinent to mention the methodology used in each case or at least point the reader to a general discussion of orbit estimation methods used by astronomers. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 07:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no orbit info that I can see in this article for the Apophis asteroid. The articles for Ceres and other larger asteroids show their orbits and also considerable eccentricity in their orbits. Although most Asteroids orbit the Sun in the "Asteroid belt", their paths are also affected by gravitation of Jupiter and Mars and other planets of the Solar system, the paths also affected by thousands of other asteroids gravitation and possible collisions. Although Astronomers track thousands of these objects, there is a margin of error in each track that is multiplied by gravity's positive coefficient (the path of a Apophis sized body is affected by Jupiter and Mars and Earth and Venus but Apophis also affects them and other Asteroids and their altered paths affect Apophis and so on). Other unknowns in Apophis' orbital path range from pressure of Solar wind (Solar flares) to Yarkovsky effect. Gravitation or collision can break up an object, close approach to Earth could fracture Apophis (Jupiter did that to an impacting Comet), sending smaller but still lethal pieces at us. Truth is we still plan on in course correction for our space flights. Radio beacons on the ten thousand objects we now track sounds good, not so when you consider the rate of air traffic control accidents with only a few planes in the sky. And wasn't that figure of a hundred thousand asteroids big enough to wipe us out? Shjacks45 ( talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Just have read the chance part here; of course it would go perfect, as if in its trajectory it will only pass earth, but there is so many more out there. Such an object hitting the moon might be wrong too, depending on it internal makeup. Why not enter this rock as soon as possible use solar sails, or bombs and get it out of our path ?. Seams to me better then visiting the Moon or Mars, so i think this is a nice space test at least rusia takes it serious. (but probaply lack funding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.161.119 ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
NOT A FORUM
With a bit of calculations and some rockets out there they might be able to change the trajectory into a stable orbit around the earth, and close enough to be readily used as another Space Station. If it were to have viable resources within it, then the hollowed mining shafts can easily be used for living space when no longer being worked. Not only that, but the shell of the Asteroid itself would be a perfect shield against Micrometeorite impacts. I think it's a good idea, but I don't know if anyone is seriously considering the project. 207.216.58.59 ( talk) 08:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Yet another dumb idea. We do not yet have the technology to destroy the asteroid should something go wrong with this dangerous experiment of capturing another small moon. It sure would be difficult to explain to the country it lands on by mistake why we purposely altered its orbit to study it, rather than deflecting it into the sun, if we could even do that. 66.176.3.97 ( talk) 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The images shown for the 2029 close approach give a false impression of the current (March 2012) uncertainty. The images are those produced for the JPL news release in February 2005 ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news149.html). The white bar showing the range of positions is much too large to represent the current (March 2012) uncertainty. Mind you, I haven't been able to find an easily accesible better image. The following link ( http://lesia.obspm.fr/semaine-sf2a/2011/proceedings/2011/2011sf2a.conf..0629B.pdf) discusses observations made in March 2011 (there have been even more recent observations reported to the Minor Planet Center) and shows the uncertainty ellipse on the 2029 b-plane and its relation to the keyholes for various impacts in future years. Figure 3 in that publication shows how the 3-sigma ellipse on the b-plane has shrunk to 27 km x 140 km and is centred approximately 1800 km from both the 2036 and 2037 key holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdthomas23 ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that there is a new size estimate, which ups the mass estimate by 75%, what should we do with the mass value in the infobox? -- JorisvS ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The date for the 2029 and the 2036 passes are both listed as April 13. Is this a coincidence or a typo? Listing the 2029 date as Friday the 13th is a superstitious reference rather than a scientific one. The day of the week wouldn't normally be included for other days such as Monday the 8th for example. Shouldn't this trivia be moved closer to other popular culture items such as songs mentioning the asteroid? 22yearswothanks ( talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
JPL/NASA have seemingly ruled out impact for 2036, with closest approach being 19,000 miles.
I think many parts of the article might need to be rephrased in past tense. Also, in the section "History of Impact estimates" it was stated "Apophis will then come no closer than about 14 million miles — and more likely miss us by something closer to 35 million miles.[29] " These distances are not correct. -- RichG ( talk) 17:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I know an impact is ruled out but this line grabbed my attention. " A later, more refined NASA estimate was 880 megatons, then revised to 510 megatons.[3]" The link given says 7.5e+0.2MT, I don't know if I understand correctly, probably not but that's 7.5 megatons no? Using the site Impact: Earth! and putting the data of Apophis gives and impact yield of 6.2MT, was the article vandalized or something? Mike.BRZ ( talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
99942 Apophis. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The article says that "Foreisght" would be launched aboard a Minotaur IV between 2012 and 2014 and reach Apophis five to ten months later. This is in the past, so this either already happened or the project was canceled or delayed, but the article has no information on this and when I attempted a google search I was unable to find out anything. What became of this project? 71.89.179.54 ( talk) 02:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
During the introduction the Torino Scale rating citations are unclear enough to make the rating itself unclear:
"However,[...] a possibility remained that [...] Apophis would pass [...] a small region [...] that would set up a future impact [...]. This possibility kept it at Level 1 on the Torino impact hazard scale until August 2006, when the probability that Apophis would pass through the keyhole was determined to be very small. [...] During the short time when it had been of greatest concern, Apophis set the record for highest rating on the Torino scale, reaching level 4."
My main issue was that when reading this passage I wasn't sure until the last line that the Torino scale didn't peak at 1: the sense of danger is transmitted well, but then the implication that thus the Torino rating was kept at 1 due to the danger is very confusing.
So what happened? From my understanding, it was discovered in 2004 (or earlier), and during that year an estimated impact probability was made, and it was high, and the danger was only assuaged in 2006 when the probability was drastically lowered.
Was the initial rating after the 2004 probability prediction 4? Was it 1? Did it just peak at some point during 2004-2006, but was reset to 1( or 0?) in 2006?
-- NoePol ( talk) 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I edited the article to say that the word should be accented on the first syllable, but Renerpho reverted it saying that I had not given a reference. What I said in my edit comment was that the o is short so in Latin the accent goes on the first syllable (as in Greek), and so in English it is also accented on the first syllable. What exactly needs a reference? There are several possibilities:
In the meantime I am removing the incorrect pronunciation. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 07:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
e.g. a conference video-- Here is how David Tholen (the discoverer) pronounces it: DPS 52 Monday Press Conference, 26 October 2020 (YouTube video, with timestamp). For reference, this is the pronunciation used in the TV show, with the stress on the 2nd syllable ( example), and every astronomer I have ever heard follows that example. Here is the first published interview they gave about the origin of the name, from August 2005, in which Tholen talks about the TV show, and how he thought the name would be fitting: Asteroid Apophis set for a makeover Renerpho ( talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Eric Kvaalen, Mlewan, and SenseiAC: I just went ahead and added the link to the DPS 52 conference as an example of the asteroid's pronunciation. I also marked the preceding sentence, about the pronunciation of the name of the mythological creature, as needing a citation. [1] It's not controversial, but it needs a reference nonetheless. Strangely, I cannot find a good source that clearly establishes it, without the WP:OR step of implying the rules of Latin or Greek pronunciation. The Apep article refers to dictionary.com for the pronunciation, but that source conflates the two meanings, and is of no use. Maybe one of you knows some academic book about Egyptian mythology that provides proper pronunciations of names, and which can be cited in both articles (here, and in Apep)? Renerpho ( talk) 20:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to see in the article something about the eventual fate. Approximately every 1.1 years after 2029 Apophis will come back to approximately the same place in the solar system where it will almost have hit the earth in 2029. The earth comes back approximately to that point every sidereal year. So every so often there will be a fairly close encounter. Eventually there will be one that again significantly alters the orbit of Apophis, but then after that what I have just said will still be true, that is, Apophis and the earth will still come back to the same place every so often. It seems to me that these near misses will continue for a long time, until Apophis either gets perturbed so much that it has a fairly close encounter with another planet (changing its orbit so that it no longer has close encounters with Earth) or Apophis hits something, most probably the earth! What is known about the future of Apophis? When is the next time after 2029 that it will come close enough to Earth to have its orbit changed significantly? What is the probability that it will eventually hit the earth? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 10:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This should stay. The headline says what it says. WP:LIKE is no excuse for WP:Censorship. [1] 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
References
The lead says this asteroid is pronounced /ˈæpəfɪs/ yet §Discovery_and_naming says The mythological creature Apophis is pronounced with the accent on the first syllable (/ˈæpəfɪs/). In contrast, the asteroid's name is generally accented on the second syllable (/əˈpɒfɪs/) as the name was pronounced in the TV series.
. Which is it?
Nixinova
T
C
02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The article says "The close approach will be visible from Europe, Africa, and western Asia". Will it be visible (but dimmer) from North America before or after closest approach? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The article currently gives conflicting information about when and how Apophis was removed from the Sentry Risk Table, marking the point when an impact in the next 100 years was ruled out. While the final paragraph of the article lead, and some of the sources, give 25/26 March 2021 as the date, and the radar data collected in early March 2021 as the main reason for the removal, the Sentry Risk Table itself disagrees: Its Removed Objects page gives 2021-02-21 08:22:28 UTC as the time when Apophis was removed (not 26 March, as claimed in the article). At that point, only optical astrometry had been collected in 2020/2021. This needs to be clarified. Renerpho ( talk) 05:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
While we're at it: The (very useful) image [4] gives a source that does in no way support the data presented in it. Looking at its file page, things only get worse, as the page makes claims that the source can never support. The Close Approach List given as its single source does not contain any positional data that could be used to create a plot like this, let alone physical explanations, like the stated (on the file page) connection to the opposition effect. Maybe someone can look into that, too, and determine to what extent that image is WP:OR and to what it just needs better sources. Renerpho ( talk) 06:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Renerpho ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I have just removed the following paragraph
[6] from the Popular Culture section, which had been added yesterday by an
IP user:
The phenomenon became an
Internet meme proliferated by commenters on the sponge.ai livestream in May and June 2023. The stream focused on an
AI program generating parodic mini-episodes of
Spongebob SquarePants.
Besides the fact that I don't even understand what it's trying to say (which phenomenon?), I have no way to assess whether this is complete nonsense or a useful addition. With no references attached, I considered it better be moved here for discussion. Any insights? --
Renerpho (
talk)
20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
"Apophis will make two modestly close approaches to Earth in 2036, but even the planet Venus will come closer to Earth in 2036"
It may or may not, but that's not really the point. Venus isn't earth crossing whereas Apophis is. In a discussion about impact risk bringing the distance to Venus in just seems confusing. I get the point being made, that in 2036 Apophis never gets close, but perhaps there is another way to say it...
"Apophis will make two modestly close approaches to Earth in 2036, but current predictions suggest these will be no closer than 23m kilometres (60 times the distance to the moon)"
46.227.49.108 ( talk) 11:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just removed the Enter Shikari song from the "Popular Culture" section (again). Danbloch had last removed it on September 29th, [7] and it was independently added back earlier today by an IP user. What is the baseline for inclusion? Of course we need reliable sources and establish notability, but maybe we can do that for the suggested additions, rather than simply remove them? Renerpho ( talk) 10:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
99942 Apophis 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 |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated B-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 |
The lead-in section of this article is misleading
It should say has continued to cause concern from December 2004 until recently and then you can use this article http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/10/doomsday-determined-asteroid-apophis-strike-earth/ as evidence for example. Don't belittle the situation. 212.219.231.1 ( talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No calculations exist of earths magnetic field movement influence about 50km/per annum with North closer to Siberia for determining if NEO's keyholes alter from earlier calculations. Are we back at 2004 concern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plainbandit ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This article just popped up this morning. Anyone interested in editing this article may find it interesting and may be able to incorporate the information. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter 98.215.128.112 ( talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody should add this to the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter I don't know how and don't want to mess it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.127.171 ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Perminov's statements (in the linked interview) indicate that he was not aware of the low probability of impact, and do not reflect any official decisions by Roscomos - so there aren't really any 'Russian plans' yet. I recommend that we leave this out of the article for the moment. Also please remember that this is the talk page for editing the article about Apophis, not a forum for personal opinions (I removed those posts). Michaelbusch ( talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you insist, 76.14.42.191, I'll let it stay. But I have rephrased the text to be more accurate. Note: I do have a personal bias with this article. I am a member of the team that has been refining the impact probability estimates for the past several years. It is very relevant to me that Perminov has apparently been mis-informed about our work. Michaelbusch ( talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Novosti 2009-02-25 ( http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090225/120298367.html) says "In 2012, Apophis will pass close enough to Earth, enabling scientists to more accurately calculate its 2029 orbit." If so, ISTM worth giving date and distance of that pass, and of any other comparatively near passes before the important ones. 82.163.24.100 ( talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:99942_Apophis/Archive_2#2016_Venus_encounter for more details.. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
The statement of Apophis being the most persistent Stargate villain, although in the article Goa'uld characters in Stargate is stated that Ba'al is the longest-running villain in Stargate show. 195.39.74.163 ( talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Although the Greek name for the Egyptian god may be appropriate, Tholen and Tucker — two of the co-discovers of the asteroid — are reportedly fans of the TV series Stargate SG-1. The show's most persistent villain is an alien also named for the Egyptian god." (Supporting source: Bill Cooke (August 18, 2005). "Asteroid Apophis set for a makeover". Astronomy Magazine.
{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|urldate=
ignored ( help).)
During the lecture for the 40th Apollo 11 Anniversary, Buzz Aldrin proposed a manned mission, here's a powerpoint slide of his which shows it, if someone wants to add something to the missions section: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/buzz_aldrins_on.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafafa Hots ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"Apophis’s brightness will peak at magnitude 3.3, with a maximum angular speed of 42° per hour. The maximum apparent angular diameter will be ~2 arcseconds, so that it will be barely resolved by telescopes not equipped with adaptive optics."
"On that date, it will become as bright as magnitude 3.3 (visible to the naked eye from rural and some darker suburban areas, visible with binoculars from most locations"
According to the Apparent_magnitude page, the second quote would appear to be the correct one. Does someone want to take a shot at fixing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.3.245 ( talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I rv'ed an showing a 1 in 250,000 chance of a collision. The auto generated link at NEO does show the odds as only 1 in 233,000 (2036-04-13.37; 4.3e-06), but since it is an auto generated page I think it is better if we stay with a human created reference. Besides there have been no new observations of the asteroid since 2008-01-09. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The event of 2036 will occur on Gregorian Easter Sunday (Orthodox Easter Sunday will be a week later) - that seems worth mentioning.
Could there be a table of all nearest approaches this century, with brief details including miss distance, visible magnitude, GMT of pass, terrestrial nadir of pass, with uncertainties?
82.163.24.100 ( talk) 09:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Apophis will then come no closer than about 14 million miles — and more likely miss us by something closer to 35 million miles. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Article includes "An impact several thousand kilometres off the West Coast of the US would produce a devastating tsunami." True, no doubt; but why the parochiality? An impact off North Brazil would devastate the northern coast of South America, the Caribbean, the African coast, etc. Better to say something like "A [deep-]sea impact would devastate coasts up to thousands of kilometres away". 94.30.84.71 ( talk) 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that this image be removed, since it illustrates as possible as event that has now been ruled out. gpeterw ( talk) 12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. According to the impact risk there is a path that covers a 20 hour earth turn rate. (I would think the curved path indicates this is a time lag due to how the earth is turned).
At the speed the earth is revolving around the sun how can predictions of the accuracy they are claiming be made? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.238.250 ( talk) 16:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This image is used on both elsewhere on this talk page and on the main article, as well as on a few other articles. The filename File:2037 Apophis Path of Risk.jpg indicates that it charts the path of risk in 2037, but the descripion always cites 2036. As 2036 is the greater risk, it seems likely that the file was misnamed. Can anyone confirm the correct year for this image and correct its name or usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparr ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering how the impact calculations would differ if the asteroid Apophis turns out to be a big rubble pile, its center of mass would change during close approach and rotation rate? Also if Apophis turns out to be a rubble pile that breaks apart on close aproach to Earth,How much more of a threat would it be to multible geostationary satellites? Jalanp2 ( talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"In the soon to be released id Software game Rage, the game-play takes place on Earth years after an impact by Apophis.[29]"
Does anyone else think this section is utterly unnecessary (to be kind) in a serious article about Apophis? Rodney420 ( talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In the section Possible impact effects, the article says:
This is incoherent. If the path of risk is only a few miles wide, it cannot possibly cover "most of southern Russia", and indeed not more than a few thousand square miles. Someone with better understanding should correct this. — Dominus ( talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Curious about the dimension info in the Basic Data section. 1) There's a historical statement that there was an estimate of 450 meters at an unspecified time. 2) In the same sentence, an estimate of 350 meters, without stating that this is the most recent and accurate estimate (is it?) 3) In the summary sidebar, an estimate of ~270 meters, with a References link to a JPL database and a suggestion that the most recent observation in the database is 2008.01.09. I was looking for a statement of highest confidence for the dimensions of Apophis relative to most-recent observations, and am not sure whether I found it. Mvsmith ( talk) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Is a Bayesian or some similar statistical method being used to estimate the object's orbit? Is a standardized method being used by all of the observers presenting estimates of the probability of an Earth impact? (What is the apples/oranges potential in the numbers presented?) Are all of the observations obtained to date used to form a population of observations or are the estimates based on the short arcs defined by each of the sets of observations listed in the article? It would be pertinent to mention the methodology used in each case or at least point the reader to a general discussion of orbit estimation methods used by astronomers. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 07:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no orbit info that I can see in this article for the Apophis asteroid. The articles for Ceres and other larger asteroids show their orbits and also considerable eccentricity in their orbits. Although most Asteroids orbit the Sun in the "Asteroid belt", their paths are also affected by gravitation of Jupiter and Mars and other planets of the Solar system, the paths also affected by thousands of other asteroids gravitation and possible collisions. Although Astronomers track thousands of these objects, there is a margin of error in each track that is multiplied by gravity's positive coefficient (the path of a Apophis sized body is affected by Jupiter and Mars and Earth and Venus but Apophis also affects them and other Asteroids and their altered paths affect Apophis and so on). Other unknowns in Apophis' orbital path range from pressure of Solar wind (Solar flares) to Yarkovsky effect. Gravitation or collision can break up an object, close approach to Earth could fracture Apophis (Jupiter did that to an impacting Comet), sending smaller but still lethal pieces at us. Truth is we still plan on in course correction for our space flights. Radio beacons on the ten thousand objects we now track sounds good, not so when you consider the rate of air traffic control accidents with only a few planes in the sky. And wasn't that figure of a hundred thousand asteroids big enough to wipe us out? Shjacks45 ( talk) 09:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Just have read the chance part here; of course it would go perfect, as if in its trajectory it will only pass earth, but there is so many more out there. Such an object hitting the moon might be wrong too, depending on it internal makeup. Why not enter this rock as soon as possible use solar sails, or bombs and get it out of our path ?. Seams to me better then visiting the Moon or Mars, so i think this is a nice space test at least rusia takes it serious. (but probaply lack funding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.161.119 ( talk) 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
NOT A FORUM
With a bit of calculations and some rockets out there they might be able to change the trajectory into a stable orbit around the earth, and close enough to be readily used as another Space Station. If it were to have viable resources within it, then the hollowed mining shafts can easily be used for living space when no longer being worked. Not only that, but the shell of the Asteroid itself would be a perfect shield against Micrometeorite impacts. I think it's a good idea, but I don't know if anyone is seriously considering the project. 207.216.58.59 ( talk) 08:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Yet another dumb idea. We do not yet have the technology to destroy the asteroid should something go wrong with this dangerous experiment of capturing another small moon. It sure would be difficult to explain to the country it lands on by mistake why we purposely altered its orbit to study it, rather than deflecting it into the sun, if we could even do that. 66.176.3.97 ( talk) 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The images shown for the 2029 close approach give a false impression of the current (March 2012) uncertainty. The images are those produced for the JPL news release in February 2005 ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news149.html). The white bar showing the range of positions is much too large to represent the current (March 2012) uncertainty. Mind you, I haven't been able to find an easily accesible better image. The following link ( http://lesia.obspm.fr/semaine-sf2a/2011/proceedings/2011/2011sf2a.conf..0629B.pdf) discusses observations made in March 2011 (there have been even more recent observations reported to the Minor Planet Center) and shows the uncertainty ellipse on the 2029 b-plane and its relation to the keyholes for various impacts in future years. Figure 3 in that publication shows how the 3-sigma ellipse on the b-plane has shrunk to 27 km x 140 km and is centred approximately 1800 km from both the 2036 and 2037 key holes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdthomas23 ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that there is a new size estimate, which ups the mass estimate by 75%, what should we do with the mass value in the infobox? -- JorisvS ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The date for the 2029 and the 2036 passes are both listed as April 13. Is this a coincidence or a typo? Listing the 2029 date as Friday the 13th is a superstitious reference rather than a scientific one. The day of the week wouldn't normally be included for other days such as Monday the 8th for example. Shouldn't this trivia be moved closer to other popular culture items such as songs mentioning the asteroid? 22yearswothanks ( talk) 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
JPL/NASA have seemingly ruled out impact for 2036, with closest approach being 19,000 miles.
I think many parts of the article might need to be rephrased in past tense. Also, in the section "History of Impact estimates" it was stated "Apophis will then come no closer than about 14 million miles — and more likely miss us by something closer to 35 million miles.[29] " These distances are not correct. -- RichG ( talk) 17:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I know an impact is ruled out but this line grabbed my attention. " A later, more refined NASA estimate was 880 megatons, then revised to 510 megatons.[3]" The link given says 7.5e+0.2MT, I don't know if I understand correctly, probably not but that's 7.5 megatons no? Using the site Impact: Earth! and putting the data of Apophis gives and impact yield of 6.2MT, was the article vandalized or something? Mike.BRZ ( talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
99942 Apophis. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The article says that "Foreisght" would be launched aboard a Minotaur IV between 2012 and 2014 and reach Apophis five to ten months later. This is in the past, so this either already happened or the project was canceled or delayed, but the article has no information on this and when I attempted a google search I was unable to find out anything. What became of this project? 71.89.179.54 ( talk) 02:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
During the introduction the Torino Scale rating citations are unclear enough to make the rating itself unclear:
"However,[...] a possibility remained that [...] Apophis would pass [...] a small region [...] that would set up a future impact [...]. This possibility kept it at Level 1 on the Torino impact hazard scale until August 2006, when the probability that Apophis would pass through the keyhole was determined to be very small. [...] During the short time when it had been of greatest concern, Apophis set the record for highest rating on the Torino scale, reaching level 4."
My main issue was that when reading this passage I wasn't sure until the last line that the Torino scale didn't peak at 1: the sense of danger is transmitted well, but then the implication that thus the Torino rating was kept at 1 due to the danger is very confusing.
So what happened? From my understanding, it was discovered in 2004 (or earlier), and during that year an estimated impact probability was made, and it was high, and the danger was only assuaged in 2006 when the probability was drastically lowered.
Was the initial rating after the 2004 probability prediction 4? Was it 1? Did it just peak at some point during 2004-2006, but was reset to 1( or 0?) in 2006?
-- NoePol ( talk) 11:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 99942 Apophis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I edited the article to say that the word should be accented on the first syllable, but Renerpho reverted it saying that I had not given a reference. What I said in my edit comment was that the o is short so in Latin the accent goes on the first syllable (as in Greek), and so in English it is also accented on the first syllable. What exactly needs a reference? There are several possibilities:
In the meantime I am removing the incorrect pronunciation. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 07:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
e.g. a conference video-- Here is how David Tholen (the discoverer) pronounces it: DPS 52 Monday Press Conference, 26 October 2020 (YouTube video, with timestamp). For reference, this is the pronunciation used in the TV show, with the stress on the 2nd syllable ( example), and every astronomer I have ever heard follows that example. Here is the first published interview they gave about the origin of the name, from August 2005, in which Tholen talks about the TV show, and how he thought the name would be fitting: Asteroid Apophis set for a makeover Renerpho ( talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Eric Kvaalen, Mlewan, and SenseiAC: I just went ahead and added the link to the DPS 52 conference as an example of the asteroid's pronunciation. I also marked the preceding sentence, about the pronunciation of the name of the mythological creature, as needing a citation. [1] It's not controversial, but it needs a reference nonetheless. Strangely, I cannot find a good source that clearly establishes it, without the WP:OR step of implying the rules of Latin or Greek pronunciation. The Apep article refers to dictionary.com for the pronunciation, but that source conflates the two meanings, and is of no use. Maybe one of you knows some academic book about Egyptian mythology that provides proper pronunciations of names, and which can be cited in both articles (here, and in Apep)? Renerpho ( talk) 20:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to see in the article something about the eventual fate. Approximately every 1.1 years after 2029 Apophis will come back to approximately the same place in the solar system where it will almost have hit the earth in 2029. The earth comes back approximately to that point every sidereal year. So every so often there will be a fairly close encounter. Eventually there will be one that again significantly alters the orbit of Apophis, but then after that what I have just said will still be true, that is, Apophis and the earth will still come back to the same place every so often. It seems to me that these near misses will continue for a long time, until Apophis either gets perturbed so much that it has a fairly close encounter with another planet (changing its orbit so that it no longer has close encounters with Earth) or Apophis hits something, most probably the earth! What is known about the future of Apophis? When is the next time after 2029 that it will come close enough to Earth to have its orbit changed significantly? What is the probability that it will eventually hit the earth? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 10:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This should stay. The headline says what it says. WP:LIKE is no excuse for WP:Censorship. [1] 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
References
The lead says this asteroid is pronounced /ˈæpəfɪs/ yet §Discovery_and_naming says The mythological creature Apophis is pronounced with the accent on the first syllable (/ˈæpəfɪs/). In contrast, the asteroid's name is generally accented on the second syllable (/əˈpɒfɪs/) as the name was pronounced in the TV series.
. Which is it?
Nixinova
T
C
02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The article says "The close approach will be visible from Europe, Africa, and western Asia". Will it be visible (but dimmer) from North America before or after closest approach? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The article currently gives conflicting information about when and how Apophis was removed from the Sentry Risk Table, marking the point when an impact in the next 100 years was ruled out. While the final paragraph of the article lead, and some of the sources, give 25/26 March 2021 as the date, and the radar data collected in early March 2021 as the main reason for the removal, the Sentry Risk Table itself disagrees: Its Removed Objects page gives 2021-02-21 08:22:28 UTC as the time when Apophis was removed (not 26 March, as claimed in the article). At that point, only optical astrometry had been collected in 2020/2021. This needs to be clarified. Renerpho ( talk) 05:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
While we're at it: The (very useful) image [4] gives a source that does in no way support the data presented in it. Looking at its file page, things only get worse, as the page makes claims that the source can never support. The Close Approach List given as its single source does not contain any positional data that could be used to create a plot like this, let alone physical explanations, like the stated (on the file page) connection to the opposition effect. Maybe someone can look into that, too, and determine to what extent that image is WP:OR and to what it just needs better sources. Renerpho ( talk) 06:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Renerpho ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I have just removed the following paragraph
[6] from the Popular Culture section, which had been added yesterday by an
IP user:
The phenomenon became an
Internet meme proliferated by commenters on the sponge.ai livestream in May and June 2023. The stream focused on an
AI program generating parodic mini-episodes of
Spongebob SquarePants.
Besides the fact that I don't even understand what it's trying to say (which phenomenon?), I have no way to assess whether this is complete nonsense or a useful addition. With no references attached, I considered it better be moved here for discussion. Any insights? --
Renerpho (
talk)
20:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
"Apophis will make two modestly close approaches to Earth in 2036, but even the planet Venus will come closer to Earth in 2036"
It may or may not, but that's not really the point. Venus isn't earth crossing whereas Apophis is. In a discussion about impact risk bringing the distance to Venus in just seems confusing. I get the point being made, that in 2036 Apophis never gets close, but perhaps there is another way to say it...
"Apophis will make two modestly close approaches to Earth in 2036, but current predictions suggest these will be no closer than 23m kilometres (60 times the distance to the moon)"
46.227.49.108 ( talk) 11:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just removed the Enter Shikari song from the "Popular Culture" section (again). Danbloch had last removed it on September 29th, [7] and it was independently added back earlier today by an IP user. What is the baseline for inclusion? Of course we need reliable sources and establish notability, but maybe we can do that for the suggested additions, rather than simply remove them? Renerpho ( talk) 10:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)