![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
READ= http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-russian-tiny-asteroid-20130215,0,5424522.story?track=rss The Medvedev government is referring to it as KEF-2013 - NorthernThunder ( talk) 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Meteoroid, meteor and meteorite are different stages. What was seen and heard was a meteor, not a meteorite. What might be found on the ground would be a meteorite, not a meteor. If you take a photo of a fetus, and then it grows into an adult human, the photo is still of a fetus, not of an adult human. Kingturtle = ( talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it'd be cool if this article were renamed "The Chelyabinsk Event of 2013," similar to the "Tunguska Event of 1908." Just my two cents... Tomjoad187 ( talk) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Tomjode187 "Chelyabinsk Impact event" is specific and follows logical convention, like the article "Carancas impact event" I second a name change for this article. Richard Sidler 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sailsbystars that a name change should hold off for a few days until media coverage has died down. With respect to the final naming, here are the titles of articles about similar events:
based on these I believe this article should either be titled "Chelyabinsk meteorite", "Chelyabinsk meteor" or "Chelyabinsk impact event". Initially I searched wiki for "Chelyabinsk meteor" as that is what it is popularly refereed to in the news and I think a redirect should be created with that name to this final article. However, it does appear that experts in astronomy do in fact refer to these as Impact events although personally an "impact event" is overly vague to me without context that the impact is a object from outer space and the earth as opposed to the impact of a civil rally or whatever. Schenka ( talk) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably does not have much bearing, but #Russianmeteor has been trending on Twitter. Only commenting as to what the current popular term was. I found the article by looking for "Russian Meteor".02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 02:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I had assumed (and hoped) this was just a "working title" until we could be certain on a more proper title. To my ear, it sounds a little odd to call the meteor "Russian", even though I understand the meaning perfectly. I think 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor sounds good. It's concise, informative and I have seen sources are using it. I have no idea what the most common usage is, but keep in mind that the current title could be gaining traction precisely because we here at Wikipedia are continuing to call it that. -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 00:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Meteoroid - A small particle from an asteroid or comet orbiting the Sun. Meteor - A meteoroid that is observed as it burns up in the Earth’s atmosphere – a shooting star. Meteorite - A meteoroid that survives its passage through the Earth’s atmosphere and impacts the Earth’s surface.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennvido ( talk • contribs) 09:38, February 15, 2013
Meteoroid, meteor and meteorite are different stages. What was seen and heard was a meteor, not a meteorite. What might be found on the ground would be a meteorite, not a meteor. If you take a photo of a fetus, and then it grows into an adult human, the photo is still of a fetus, not of an adult human. Kingturtle = ( talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It was definitely not a comet as someone mentioned. Comets are from the Oort cloud and are made of mainly different types of ice. A meteor comes from the asteroid belt typically. If the meteor hits the ground it is called a meteorite. There can be many different types of meteorites - stony, iron, chondrites, etc. Happy to explain differences. Volcanoman7 ( talk) 05:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This name, " 2013 Russian meteor event", has got to be the worst ever at Wikipedia. First off, "event" serves no purpose and tells us nothing. We might as well have Occurrence of the 2013 Russian meteor event happening. Second, the year is only necessary when there are multiple notable events. But other strikes like the Tunguska event (called an event because its nature is unclear) and the Sikhote-Alin meteorite are specified by their specific location, not Russia or The Soviet Union and the year in which they occurred. The article should be moved to Chelyabinsk meteor as reflected by The Independent, The Guardian, Huffington Post, Slate, CNN, La Prensa, Times of India, BBC, etc. μηδείς ( talk) 21:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Most Wikipedias around the world are calling it Chelyabinsk event. Should we? -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I found an article in The Christian Sciences Monitor which refers to a 2.7 magnitude quake recorded by the United States Geological Survey. The quake was centered around the Ural Mountains Region in Russia and occurred on Friday, February 15, 2013 at 03:22:00 UTC (approximately two minutes after the meteor entered the atmosphere). It is almost certain that this quake was a direct result of the shock wave created as the meteor exploded into a fireball. Interesting to note is that the earthquake was not considered a 'normal' quake by geological standards. Many Russian eyewitnesses reported experiencing simultaneous thundering in the sky as the ground shook beneath their feet. I also found the USGS page with an official record of the quake yet it is in the older page format and a newer page needs to be found. The USGS does not cite the magnitude of the quake, but it is at the agency's 2.5 magnitude threshold so they are still deciding upon the correct magnitude. Perhaps a better USGS source needs to be found to confirm the report.
"Russia meteor blast produced 2.7 magnitude earthquake equivalent" "Magnitude ? (uncertain or not yet determined) - URAL MOUNTAINS REGION, RUSSIA") 119.12.246.165 ( talk) 07:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Could somebody tell me. Why here on Wikipedia, which is intended for more or less intelligent people, we repeat the BS "the press", which is intended for complete idiots, is repeating in order just to say something, because "being quiet means losing the audience"? NASA said that the energy release was about 500kt. WHAT does it have to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki? It wasn't momentary release that you get from an atomic bomb. It's the whole amount of energy this thing spent while slowing down in the atmosphere.
|
Nature magazine said this: "Klinkrad says it would have been hard to give warning of the blast. In addition to being relatively small in size, the rocky meteoroid was probably dark in colour, making it even harder to spot against the backdrop of space. "We just have to live with it," he says."
Are there any sources that cite *active* search methods like emitting radio signals into the space and catching reflections of the incoming objects, instead of passive one like watching in telescopes? 93.80.36.132 ( talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It should be easily possible to create out of such an article like this an entry to Wikinews, which is often lagging far behind topical themes. -- Sae1962 ( talk) 20:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a source to say that the NASA articles is using short tons as a unit. The way it is written, I see only "Tons". Is it customary for NASA to use short tons ? 83.163.5.82 ( talk) 07:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
On 15 February 2013, a small asteroid entered Earth's atmosphere over Russia at approximately 09:20 Yekaterinburg time (03:20 UTC), becoming a fireball.
In actual fact, NASA says nothing about it having been an asteroid. They just call it an 'object'. Could have been a comet. Or God knows what else. I believe the correct term should be Small Solar System body. 77.245.119.254 ( talk) 10:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 12:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the links: Orbit of the Russian Meteor / How Do We Know the Russian Meteor and 2012 DA14 Aren't Related? -- Kheider ( talk) 15:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A comet would not have produced such air burst as they are made mostly of water and dust. Incontrast, asteroids contain large amounts of metals, including iron, wich absorbs a lot of heat and is more difficult to vaporize upon entry. Naming this asteroid (meteorite) as an "object" is not useful and lends itself to conspiracy theories. We we know the "object" was a meteorite, so call it what it is. CHeers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the first small fragments are being found:
-- Kheider ( talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional details here - http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130217/179531203/Meteorite-Fragments-Found-in-Icy-Urals-Lake---Scientists.html Including quotes from Viktor Grohovsky of the Urals Federal University 'We have just completed the study, we confirm that the particulate matters, found by our expedition in the area of Lake Chebarkul indeed have meteorite nature,” Viktor Grohovsky of the Urals Federal University said. “This meteorite is an ordinary chondrite, it is a stony meteorite which contains some 10 percent of iron. It is most likely to be named Chebarkul meteorite,” Grohovsky said.'
Chondrite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.155.165 ( talk) 22:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The article had a claim by Vladimir Zhirinovsky that it is not meteor event, but American weapon testing. Since is a fringe view, I removed it from the mainstream reaction section and added in a section titled American weapon conspiracy theory. But my edit was removed by Bongwarrior ( talk · contribs) with an edit summary, removed per WP:UNDUE - "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". After Bongwarrior removed Zhirinovsky claim, Medeis ( talk · contribs) re-added it with an edit summary notable reaction. Now you guys decide whether Zhirinovsky view should stay or not. -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 07:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Meteorite fragments have already been recovered. There is no controversy worth including. Really. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment A priest is now calling it wrath of God [5] [6]. So I will support creation of an article titled 2013 Russian meteor alternative theories in the same fashion as RMS Titanic alternative theories, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternative theories. All the nonsense will belong there. -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 16:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The only notable aspect of this weapon claim is that it is idiotic and irrelevant for an encyclopedia. CHeers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I know NASA wrote that but has anyone even tried to think?? That would not be something like 15 meters rock, rather 150 meters rock that would cause a global devastation
Just think of something enormous like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_797 and that takes only 400 tons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.238.17 ( talk) 01:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no way -even with 10% iron content- that a 17m meteor had a mass of 10,000 tons. The typist must have mixed kg with tons, since there is no scientific controversy on its mass. A difference of 3 orders of magnitude cannot be ignored and would be debated at the highest level, which is not happening, but in Wikipedia. Some sourcess citing 10 tons:
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)Is it a typo or a case of he said/she said? No. It is about science (the one concerned with the universal laws of physics). No original research here, only a factual estimate using simple math: A 17 m diameter meteor would have a ≈ 2570 m3 volume. Since 1 kg of solid iron has a volume = 0.127 m3 and assuming that the meteorite was 100% iron, then 2570 m3 / 127 = 20 tons. Note that this meteor was likely composed of about 10% iron, bringing the mass estimate significantly below 20 tons, and certainly NOWHERE near 10,000 tons. I can’t be more precise and objective than this. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Here just a few arguments on plausibility: If the altitude of maximum energy output (i.e. the effective "center" of the "explosion") is about 20 km and if one uses a spherical model explosion for comparison, than 500 KT would result in a 3 KPa or 0.4 psi peak overpressure according to the "BLAST" model found at the Nuclear Weapon Archive which is in agreement with the damage near GZ (except for the partial collapse of the zink factory which would require either considerably higher overpressure or the roof beeing in poor condition already before the event). Even 10000 t give 'only' 390 KT, but since the blast fraction of nuclear airbursts (for which the model used above is calibrated) is only about 50% and that of a meteor event is largely unknown, is 500 KT figure is realistic.-- SiriusB ( talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This page is an example of why some laymen should not be posting calculations they clearly cannot perform (hint Battery Included). A 17m diameter solid object (stony iron) does not weigh 10 tons. As someone pointed out if it was water it would weigh the best part of 3000 tons. If it was solid iron it would be over 20,000 tons. So numbers in the 7000 - 10000 range are very plausible. A large household refrigerator sized object of solid iron (say 4 cubic metres) would weigh in the 30 ton region. And fridge freezers are not the size of two decent sized houses placed on top of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.215.203 ( talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Must have been one helluva blast, CNN says "200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles) of glass were broken"! [12] (The lesson: never trust reliable sources on magnitude. Do your own calculations.) -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 04:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The sentence is about what NASA says. NASA says "10,000 tons", see this. here is what CNN said about what NASA said. The references to Reuters, etc do not state what NASA said. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Important to translate "shock wave" to " shock wave".
The shock wave concept was a big "reader necessity":
With the Russian meteor event the page-visits growed 18 times (!), from ~700 (year average) to ~13000.
The Meteor entering event at 2013-02-15 caused a peak in shock wave page views (pictured): the page views rose from 700 to 7000 in one day (!)... When people, perplexed, not understand WHY stone fragments (imagining pieces colliding) or explosion (imagining a big heat) not caused damage... The unique damage was by this strange concept, the "meteor's shock wave".
This is a pulse wave phenomena, propagating "energy of interest" through the "Web medium" :-)
-- Krauss ( talk) 12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes (!), and Meteoroid article, from (90 days) average 2000 to 65000 (33 times!) in one day. These scientific concepts (like meteoroid and shock wave) are "required to understand" concepts in the Web event report (and this article), them they "piggybacked on" the Russian-event's web-publicity. The 2012 DA14 receiveid page views for the same "piggybacked effect", but the "from ~19000 to ~350000" (18 times) statistcs effect, was also by the " Google Doodle effect" (see rapid second-day decreese comparing DA14, Meteoroid and shock wave statistics). -- Krauss ( talk) 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Intro "The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest object known to have encountered the Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event, and the only such event known to have resulted in a large number of injuries"
Damage and injuries "The Chelyabinsk meteor is thought to be the biggest meteor to hit Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event and the only known such event to result in a large number of injuries"
Basically the same sentence twice in the page in different sections - if this this intentional please ignore but I could not see a reason for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.155.165 ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It was one more big event in last century after Tunguska: Sihote-Alin in 1947, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhote-Alin_meteorite. It was also in Russia. That makes the claim 'biggest since Tunguska event' just plain wrong: Sihote-Alin meteorite was 70 ton estimated. -Andrei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.110.5 ( talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This was briefly mentioned in Archive 1 but not properly discussed.
Most news sources - and this article - talk about an "explosion"... however, all of the videos clearly show the streak disappearing, and not exploding. The trail, even after it gets really bright, simply continues solely in a forward direction and fizzles out. No frills. Not to mention that the NASA page doesn't even mention the word "explosion". I think we ought to rethink the way we have unambiguously and unquestioningly branded the shockwave as an "explosion". BigSteve ( talk) 23:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated if someone familiar with the situation could add the estimated composition of the meteorite: e.g., the density, metals, etc. If such information is unavailable, then we could add the estimated guesses by scientists based on where the object came from - as many objects in the same regions have similar compositions. If that proves impossible too, then we should state as much. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 23:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read the term "low trajectory" in several sources. Does anyone know what that implies? I gather it refers to the fact the trajectory was more horizontal than vertical. But was it atypical for a meteor? Would a "straight on" hit have been significantly worse? Spiel496 ( talk) 05:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
What would be the most apposite man-made object to compare the object to, in size terms? Would a house be about the same size? Prioryman ( talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but so many things are odd about this story that I can actually understand the conspiracy theorists this time.
I mean, seriously... it's a COINCIDENCE that the biggest meteor in 100 years reaches the Earth hours before the OTHER biggest meteor in 100 years?
And then, I've just read that authorities have "given up" looking for fragments of the meteor, and that the 8 meter hole in that lake's ice sheet was "not caused" by the meteor. So by WHAT do exactly round 8 meter holes in lake ice sheets get caused?
All very strange...
And am I the only one who finds it even stranger that NASA estimated a 500 kiloton BLAST from a 10-kiloton (10,000-ton) mass? This does not sound like (a) vaporization due to heat, or (b) a chemical explosion of a 10-kiloton mass of TNT. That seems to leave a nuclear mechanism... but many years of speculation about the Tunguska event have not come up with a plausible mechanism for a nuclear detonation in an incoming rock.
L1 Lagrangian point shepard = related ... this discussion got archived by someone trying to silence it - is this now what wiki is? - you dont want original research but you want to just accept all the next day pseudoscience that is being added to the wiki article - is wiki an encyclopedia or just a garage band fad?-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
once again removed non-sequitur comments from vandal editor - wiki is not a forum for comedy - wiki is a group of editors seeking to create an enclyclopedia-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding section Coincidental asteroid approach:
Is that really true?
The inclination of the orbit of the asteriod, 2012_DA14, is only 11.60° (also illustrated in ), so I would expect it to move from west to east (if the asteroid is overtaking the Earth), and not from south to north. The Russian meteor moved from east to west according to the figure in section Object and entry, "The meteor's path, with Chelyabinsk marked."
-- Mortense ( talk) 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is an airburst update from the Minor Planet Center on Twitter quoting Lindley Johnson: L. Johnson Russian Airburst Update: ~17m in size, 6400-7700 tonnes, ~470kT TNT explosion at 10-20km altitude, 18km/s speed. Ex-Apollo NEO. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Russian Fireball Largest Ever Detected by CTBTO’s Infrasound Sensors (The blast was detected by 17 infrasound stations in the CTBTO’s network) -- Kheider ( talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
We have only one news source in English that mentions KEF-2013 as a designation for the meteor. This turns out to be a translation error. The Russian news sources show that on Feb 15, President Medvedev was speaking at the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum 2013. The "designation" has nothing to do with the meteor. μηδείς ( talk) 16:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I heard back from the NASA meteor expert, and he says that about 14 of the 18 km/sec speed of the Russian meteor was from its orbit around the Sun - the rest from gravitational attraction from the Earth. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyhow, a few days ago (in the archives) there was discussion about whether the velocity was primarily from the orbit of the object around the Sun or from it falling to Earth. Most of it (approx. 78%) was from its orbit around the Sun. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any info indicating the apparent brightness of the meteor, and whether people felt a heat flash from the air-burst? The peak brightness was clearly much greater than the sun, which would suggest apparent magnitude about -27 to -30. Fig ( talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There was fragments which made it to the surface. So should it be called a Meteorite?-- ✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 06:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
===== The term "bolide" rather than "meteor" seems more accurate to describe the object passing through the atmosphere (a "meteor" usually being around the size of a grain of sand, or a little larger, and generating but a quick trail of light far above). "Meteorites" are the fragments that survived to reach the earth's surface. 75.95.173.67 ( talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [ It appears someone else already noted this issue below, and also correctly noted that the term "superbolide" may apply. ] 75.95.173.67 ( talk) 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
==== Not sure where best to mention this, but the article (and much of the media) incorrectly refer to the object as striking Earth -- For example, in the section entitled Damage and Injuries, a sentence begins with "The Chelyabinsk meteor is thought to be the biggest space object to hit Earth since....." If the object really had struck the planet surface, there would be a very large impact crater (and far more destruction than actually occurred). Instead, the object disintegrated in the planet's atmosphere (probably pancaking due to the enormous pressure differential on the leading and trailing edges, plus the heat buildup). Only a few small fragments actually reached the ground. The damage resulted from the shock wave from the air burst, hypersonic boom, etc. Must be a better way of phrasing what transpired than saying that it is "the biggest space object to hit Earth...." 75.95.173.67 ( talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this sentence in the summary, "The asteroid responsible for the meteor was significantly smaller than objects that are tracked through current efforts by space object scientists". However, several asteroids smaller then 17 metres have been detected e.g. 2008 TC3 was only 4.1 metres wide. Here's a list [16] of past close approaches with Near Earth Objects, 16 of 23 were <17 metres. -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 01:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Some editors mistakenly believe the object that entered the atmosphere was a "meteor" e.g. this non-sensical sentence "The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest object known to have entered the Earth's atmosphere since the 1908 Tunguska event". A meteor is the light emitted by a meteoroid (or comet or asteroid) as it burns up in the atmosphere. It was not the solid object, and it was most likely a small asteroid, as NASA says it was 17 metres wide. These are not flexible terms, they are officially recognised and defined used by scientists. Just because the media misuses them we should not, lest we start calling tsunamis tidal waves. --
Diamonddavej (
talk)
03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
[
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meteor ]
meteor
noun
Astronomy.
1a: a meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere.
1b: a transient fiery streak in the sky produced by a meteoroid passing through the earth's atmosphere; a shooting star or bolide.
2: any person or object that moves, progresses, becomes famous, etc., with spectacular speed.
[
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meteor ]
Definition of meteor
noun
a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth’s atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light.
Origin:
mid 16th century (denoting any atmospheric phenomenon): from modern Latin meteorum, from Greek meteōron, neuter (used as a noun) of meteōros 'lofty'
[
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meteor ]
meteor
1: an atmospheric phenomenon (as lightning or a snowfall)
2a : any of the small particles of matter in the solar system that are directly observable only by their incandescence from frictional heating on entry into the atmosphere
2b : the streak of light produced by the passage of a meteor
--
Guy Macon (
talk)
05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Some definitions of a meteor says 0-10 meters in size. However, even NASA calls it a meteor! http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/news/asteroid20130215.html /Tomioni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.248.183 ( talk) 11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DA14, and the Russian event weren't the only space rocks. Cuba, and San Francisco also had reports of fireballs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.226.66 ( talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
According to 2013_Russian_meteor_event#Impact, divers did not find any meteorite in the water. Then how could it be possible to form a 6 metre-wide hole? Where is the meteorite that caused this hole? -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Reference #75 is used to say that Phil Plait said that this and 2012 DA14 were nearly 500,000 km apart.
The relative velocity (V-relative) between Earth and DA14 was 7.8 km/sec. JPL Horizons shows that at 2013-Feb-15 03:20 UTC, DA14 was still more than 0.0025 AU (370,000 km; 230,000 mi) from Earth. -- Kheider ( talk) 11:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring of Russia
[ Report]
Part of report translation from Russian.
About fall the meteorite pieces, which were made by air burst in region of Chelyabinsk Oblast
By information, received from observers on ground meteorological stations in Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Oblasts, at 15 february 2013 since 7:00 till 8:00 (moscow time) was seeing luminous trail from meteorite pieces falling, which were generated as a result of air burst from the side of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (in the direction from nort-east to south-west) at the areas of population aggregates Talitsa (80 km to the east of Yekaterinburg), Sloboda Turinskaya (225 km to the nort-east of Yekaterinburg), Schelkun (75 km to the south), Asbest (80 km to the nort-east), Balandino Airport (Chelyabinsk), in region of Chelyabinsk city, and also in region of Koltsovo Airport (Yekaterinburg).
At 7:15 (moscow time) 15 february over aerodrome Chelyabinsk were observed multiple air bursts, following harsh chemical smell. By information of AMSC (Aviation Meteorological Station Civil) workers, air traffic controllers, crews of civil aviation aircrafts, during the night over the region of Chelyabinsk aerodrome were observed flights of luminous unidentified objects. By information of Head of AMC (Aviational Meteorological Center) Koltsovo (Yekaterinburg) at night also were obserevd flights of luminous objects.
15 february around from 7:30 till 8:00 (moscow time) over area of Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Oblasts were observed a number of air bursts, probably from objects of space origin. At AMSC Balandino (Chelyabinsk) by a shock wave were broken windows and some partitions between rooms. There are no victims, one injured (cut by fragments of broken glass).
15 february at 8:15 (moscow time) Acting Head of Department of Ural AHEM (Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring) gave instructions to do more frequent measurements at Points of Observation of atmospheric air Pollution (POP) in Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg, and also more frequent measurements at Points of Observation of Radioactive Pollution of atmospheric air (PORP) and at meteorological stations.
Meteor126 95.220.27.197 ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Morning photo session near Chelyabinsk
Unfortunately copyrighted. Meteor126 (Ru.Wiki) 95.220.1.144 ( talk) 12:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the Damages and Injuries section provides (reliably sourced): "...."3,724 apartments, 671 educational institutions, 69 cultural facilities, 34 hospitals and clinics, 11 social facilities and five sport venues in the Chelyabinsk region..." that needed repairs as a result of the shock wave damage. Approximately 100,000 or so homeowners were affected according to Mikhail Yurevich...".
The list of damaged buildings was copied verbatim from the English news report. Some elaboration or clarification is needed: are the 3,724 apartments referring to apartment buildings, or to the separate apartment units within apartment buildings? If the latter, then the number of damaged apartment buildings would be significantly smaller. The other clarification required is for the vague 100K 'homeowners'; what type of buildings were these homes, condo units or stand-alone single-family homes, or a mix of both? I suspect the Russian or Chelyabinsk Region emergency authorities maintain a centralized listing of this data, and it would be good to access it for the latest figures as well. HarryZilber ( talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we sort out which direction the object was moving for the section "Unrelated Asteroid approach?" I pulled a statement from NASA saying that it was north to south while another source stated east to west. The article saying east to west is in Russian, so I'm unable to decipher it. Cheerioswithmilk ( talk) 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed to north to south, because Chelyabinsk is north of Chebarkul, because of (Quinn, Ben and agencies (February 15, 2013). "Asteroid misses Earth by 17,000 miles after meteor strikes Russia". The Guardian (Guardian News and Media). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/15/asteroid-misses-earth-meteor-strike. Retrieved February 15, 2013.) and because of this picture ( [19]). Scientific American, Meteor researcher Margaret Campbell-Brown [20]:
Petri Krohn's conclusion above that the meteor followed a more east to west direction trajectory, instead of the north to south direction mentioned by other sources, is correct. As he points out the shadows of the street light poles move west to east on the roadway below in this south looking view looking, which implies a definite east to west motion component of the light source. Moreover, the shadows of the light pole tips travel almost exactly parallel to the east west running lanes on the road below (along a line from about170 degrees to about 80 degrees). Thus the line traced out by the shadow tips on the road surface and the tip of one of the light pole tops in the center of the picture define a plane in which the light source had to have been moving. Given the proportions in the video, such as car sizes, light poles are likely about 10 m tall. The shortest pole shadow lengths appear to be about the height of the pole. This entails that the aforementioned plane would have an about 45 degree inclination toward the south, with the pole tip shadow line on the pavement forming the intersection between that plane and the plane defined by the pavement. The initial pole shadows pointed toward an about 300 degree heading (light source in the east southeast area and traveled over about the next 5 second time interval via the 360 reps. 0 degree heading to an about 40 degree heading. The brightest flash was recorded when the shadows pointed toward an about 340 degree heading. If the meteor came in on a trajectory tangential to the earths surface, i.e. on a grazing trajectory, it would have to have been traveling pretty much exactly from east to west. However, if the meteor came in on a path inclined to the local Chelyabinsk horizon plane, then it must have come in from an E to SE direction, traveling toward W to NW. The steeper the more from a southerly direction.
The meteor "flashed" brightly when it was SSE of Chelyabinsk at an about 160 degree heading (to go with the above mentioned about 340 degree heading of the light pole shadow at the time of the "flash"). Because the meteor presumably "burst" about 20 to 30 km above ground, and given the above mentioned putative motion planes inclination, that "flash" had to have occurred above an area located about 20 to 30 km SSE of Chelyabinsk. This puts the "flash" location roughly SSE and halfway between Chelyabinsk and Yemanzhelinsk and pretty much exactly due east from Chebarkul and its adjacent lake, where some of the fragments supposedly impacted on earth. Also, over the roughly 5 Seconds long period of the "light show" the shadow of the pole tips traveled about 3 pole heights along the pavement from west to east, or about 30 m given the above assumptions. This makes for an about 6 m/s west to east motion for the pole tips shadow. Given the 10 m light pole height, the 45 degree inclination of the putative plane of motion of the meteor, and the roughly 20 to 30 km SSE location of the "flash" this results in an about 15 km/s east west component for the meteors velocity. This leaves very little for a south to north velocity component, considering the 15 to 18 km/s total velocity estimated by others for this meteor. Looks like a grazing trajectory with an approach from E to ESE toward W to WNW is a pretty good guess after all. A "south to north" trajectory is not likely a good guess, and a "north to south" trajectory is impossible given the evidence. Jbwischki ( talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC),
1.178.161.116 ( talk) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
See: The latest orbit determined by Dave Clark (and yes, the meteor came roughly from the East, not from the North as stated in the initial NASA reports) -- Kheider ( talk) 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the from south to north etc. because these directions are useless in Celestial mechanics. Firstly, these are directions in the surface of the Earth. Secondly, there were hours between the two events. Therefore the Earth was in different orientation. Kondormari ( talk) 09:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have replaced the link to the "Bleeding Love" dash cam video because it shows the event from just before atmospheric entry, complete with timestamps, and furthermore it seems that the article would be woefully incomplete without some of that fabled and iconic Russian wide-angle dash cam footage. (WP:ELNEVER isn't an issue inasmuch as the song's copyright holder hasn't asserted his copyright in the U.S.; the video remains up on YouTube, although from what I gather it is unavailable in Germany.) kencf0618 ( talk) 01:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zuluaga2013 agrees with the data posted on The American Meteor Society: Large Daytime Fireball Hits Russia -- Kheider ( talk) 12:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Parameter |
aphelion (Q) |
perihelion (q) |
Semi-major axis (a) |
eccentricity (e) |
inclination (i) |
Longitude ascending node (Ω) |
Argument of perihelion (ω) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Units | AU | (°) | |||||
AMS | 2.53 | 0.80 | 1.66 | 0.52 | 4.05° | 326.43° | 116.0° |
Zuluaga2013 | 2.64 | 0.82 | 1.73 | 0.51 | 3.45° | 326.70° | 120.62° |
iau3423 | 2.33 | 0.768 | 1.55 | 0.50 | 3.6° | 326.41° | 109.7° |
Preliminary Orbit of the Chelyabinsk Meteoroid.mp4 (Jorge Zuluaga) -- Kheider ( talk) 20:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"The impacting asteroid came from the constellation Pegasus in the Northern hemisphere."
Please clarify this sentence, because Pegasus is 38 million light-years from Earth. Maybe they imply it came from that general direction?. Also, the same authors reported the asteroid belongs the Apollo asteroid belt, which makes much more sense. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Under the media coverage section the first sentence is this: "The Russian government put out a brief statement within an hour of the event." The citation is for an article from The Atlantic called How a D.C. Hockey Fan Site Got the Russian Meteorite Story Before the AP. No where in this article does it mention the brief put out by the Russian government. This source, while reputable, it not appropriate for this quote. I propose editing this into two sentences.
I didn't want to edit the page directly because I think it warrants a discussion about if citing who broke the news in the US is really necessary. -- Kaleidscope-Eyes ( talk) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Added a note about the erroneous reporting that the damage was due to sonic boom. This has become a widespread misconception. Did not add any particular reference because erroneous reporting was widespread across many media outlets. Joncolvin ( talk) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
READ= http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-russian-tiny-asteroid-20130215,0,5424522.story?track=rss The Medvedev government is referring to it as KEF-2013 - NorthernThunder ( talk) 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Meteoroid, meteor and meteorite are different stages. What was seen and heard was a meteor, not a meteorite. What might be found on the ground would be a meteorite, not a meteor. If you take a photo of a fetus, and then it grows into an adult human, the photo is still of a fetus, not of an adult human. Kingturtle = ( talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it'd be cool if this article were renamed "The Chelyabinsk Event of 2013," similar to the "Tunguska Event of 1908." Just my two cents... Tomjoad187 ( talk) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Tomjode187 "Chelyabinsk Impact event" is specific and follows logical convention, like the article "Carancas impact event" I second a name change for this article. Richard Sidler 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sailsbystars that a name change should hold off for a few days until media coverage has died down. With respect to the final naming, here are the titles of articles about similar events:
based on these I believe this article should either be titled "Chelyabinsk meteorite", "Chelyabinsk meteor" or "Chelyabinsk impact event". Initially I searched wiki for "Chelyabinsk meteor" as that is what it is popularly refereed to in the news and I think a redirect should be created with that name to this final article. However, it does appear that experts in astronomy do in fact refer to these as Impact events although personally an "impact event" is overly vague to me without context that the impact is a object from outer space and the earth as opposed to the impact of a civil rally or whatever. Schenka ( talk) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably does not have much bearing, but #Russianmeteor has been trending on Twitter. Only commenting as to what the current popular term was. I found the article by looking for "Russian Meteor".02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 02:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I had assumed (and hoped) this was just a "working title" until we could be certain on a more proper title. To my ear, it sounds a little odd to call the meteor "Russian", even though I understand the meaning perfectly. I think 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor sounds good. It's concise, informative and I have seen sources are using it. I have no idea what the most common usage is, but keep in mind that the current title could be gaining traction precisely because we here at Wikipedia are continuing to call it that. -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 00:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Meteoroid - A small particle from an asteroid or comet orbiting the Sun. Meteor - A meteoroid that is observed as it burns up in the Earth’s atmosphere – a shooting star. Meteorite - A meteoroid that survives its passage through the Earth’s atmosphere and impacts the Earth’s surface.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennvido ( talk • contribs) 09:38, February 15, 2013
Meteoroid, meteor and meteorite are different stages. What was seen and heard was a meteor, not a meteorite. What might be found on the ground would be a meteorite, not a meteor. If you take a photo of a fetus, and then it grows into an adult human, the photo is still of a fetus, not of an adult human. Kingturtle = ( talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It was definitely not a comet as someone mentioned. Comets are from the Oort cloud and are made of mainly different types of ice. A meteor comes from the asteroid belt typically. If the meteor hits the ground it is called a meteorite. There can be many different types of meteorites - stony, iron, chondrites, etc. Happy to explain differences. Volcanoman7 ( talk) 05:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This name, " 2013 Russian meteor event", has got to be the worst ever at Wikipedia. First off, "event" serves no purpose and tells us nothing. We might as well have Occurrence of the 2013 Russian meteor event happening. Second, the year is only necessary when there are multiple notable events. But other strikes like the Tunguska event (called an event because its nature is unclear) and the Sikhote-Alin meteorite are specified by their specific location, not Russia or The Soviet Union and the year in which they occurred. The article should be moved to Chelyabinsk meteor as reflected by The Independent, The Guardian, Huffington Post, Slate, CNN, La Prensa, Times of India, BBC, etc. μηδείς ( talk) 21:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Most Wikipedias around the world are calling it Chelyabinsk event. Should we? -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I found an article in The Christian Sciences Monitor which refers to a 2.7 magnitude quake recorded by the United States Geological Survey. The quake was centered around the Ural Mountains Region in Russia and occurred on Friday, February 15, 2013 at 03:22:00 UTC (approximately two minutes after the meteor entered the atmosphere). It is almost certain that this quake was a direct result of the shock wave created as the meteor exploded into a fireball. Interesting to note is that the earthquake was not considered a 'normal' quake by geological standards. Many Russian eyewitnesses reported experiencing simultaneous thundering in the sky as the ground shook beneath their feet. I also found the USGS page with an official record of the quake yet it is in the older page format and a newer page needs to be found. The USGS does not cite the magnitude of the quake, but it is at the agency's 2.5 magnitude threshold so they are still deciding upon the correct magnitude. Perhaps a better USGS source needs to be found to confirm the report.
"Russia meteor blast produced 2.7 magnitude earthquake equivalent" "Magnitude ? (uncertain or not yet determined) - URAL MOUNTAINS REGION, RUSSIA") 119.12.246.165 ( talk) 07:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Could somebody tell me. Why here on Wikipedia, which is intended for more or less intelligent people, we repeat the BS "the press", which is intended for complete idiots, is repeating in order just to say something, because "being quiet means losing the audience"? NASA said that the energy release was about 500kt. WHAT does it have to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki? It wasn't momentary release that you get from an atomic bomb. It's the whole amount of energy this thing spent while slowing down in the atmosphere.
|
Nature magazine said this: "Klinkrad says it would have been hard to give warning of the blast. In addition to being relatively small in size, the rocky meteoroid was probably dark in colour, making it even harder to spot against the backdrop of space. "We just have to live with it," he says."
Are there any sources that cite *active* search methods like emitting radio signals into the space and catching reflections of the incoming objects, instead of passive one like watching in telescopes? 93.80.36.132 ( talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It should be easily possible to create out of such an article like this an entry to Wikinews, which is often lagging far behind topical themes. -- Sae1962 ( talk) 20:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a source to say that the NASA articles is using short tons as a unit. The way it is written, I see only "Tons". Is it customary for NASA to use short tons ? 83.163.5.82 ( talk) 07:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
On 15 February 2013, a small asteroid entered Earth's atmosphere over Russia at approximately 09:20 Yekaterinburg time (03:20 UTC), becoming a fireball.
In actual fact, NASA says nothing about it having been an asteroid. They just call it an 'object'. Could have been a comet. Or God knows what else. I believe the correct term should be Small Solar System body. 77.245.119.254 ( talk) 10:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.161.116 ( talk) 12:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the links: Orbit of the Russian Meteor / How Do We Know the Russian Meteor and 2012 DA14 Aren't Related? -- Kheider ( talk) 15:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A comet would not have produced such air burst as they are made mostly of water and dust. Incontrast, asteroids contain large amounts of metals, including iron, wich absorbs a lot of heat and is more difficult to vaporize upon entry. Naming this asteroid (meteorite) as an "object" is not useful and lends itself to conspiracy theories. We we know the "object" was a meteorite, so call it what it is. CHeers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the first small fragments are being found:
-- Kheider ( talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional details here - http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130217/179531203/Meteorite-Fragments-Found-in-Icy-Urals-Lake---Scientists.html Including quotes from Viktor Grohovsky of the Urals Federal University 'We have just completed the study, we confirm that the particulate matters, found by our expedition in the area of Lake Chebarkul indeed have meteorite nature,” Viktor Grohovsky of the Urals Federal University said. “This meteorite is an ordinary chondrite, it is a stony meteorite which contains some 10 percent of iron. It is most likely to be named Chebarkul meteorite,” Grohovsky said.'
Chondrite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.155.165 ( talk) 22:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The article had a claim by Vladimir Zhirinovsky that it is not meteor event, but American weapon testing. Since is a fringe view, I removed it from the mainstream reaction section and added in a section titled American weapon conspiracy theory. But my edit was removed by Bongwarrior ( talk · contribs) with an edit summary, removed per WP:UNDUE - "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". After Bongwarrior removed Zhirinovsky claim, Medeis ( talk · contribs) re-added it with an edit summary notable reaction. Now you guys decide whether Zhirinovsky view should stay or not. -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 07:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Meteorite fragments have already been recovered. There is no controversy worth including. Really. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment A priest is now calling it wrath of God [5] [6]. So I will support creation of an article titled 2013 Russian meteor alternative theories in the same fashion as RMS Titanic alternative theories, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternative theories. All the nonsense will belong there. -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 16:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The only notable aspect of this weapon claim is that it is idiotic and irrelevant for an encyclopedia. CHeers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I know NASA wrote that but has anyone even tried to think?? That would not be something like 15 meters rock, rather 150 meters rock that would cause a global devastation
Just think of something enormous like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_797 and that takes only 400 tons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.238.17 ( talk) 01:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no way -even with 10% iron content- that a 17m meteor had a mass of 10,000 tons. The typist must have mixed kg with tons, since there is no scientific controversy on its mass. A difference of 3 orders of magnitude cannot be ignored and would be debated at the highest level, which is not happening, but in Wikipedia. Some sourcess citing 10 tons:
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)Is it a typo or a case of he said/she said? No. It is about science (the one concerned with the universal laws of physics). No original research here, only a factual estimate using simple math: A 17 m diameter meteor would have a ≈ 2570 m3 volume. Since 1 kg of solid iron has a volume = 0.127 m3 and assuming that the meteorite was 100% iron, then 2570 m3 / 127 = 20 tons. Note that this meteor was likely composed of about 10% iron, bringing the mass estimate significantly below 20 tons, and certainly NOWHERE near 10,000 tons. I can’t be more precise and objective than this. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Here just a few arguments on plausibility: If the altitude of maximum energy output (i.e. the effective "center" of the "explosion") is about 20 km and if one uses a spherical model explosion for comparison, than 500 KT would result in a 3 KPa or 0.4 psi peak overpressure according to the "BLAST" model found at the Nuclear Weapon Archive which is in agreement with the damage near GZ (except for the partial collapse of the zink factory which would require either considerably higher overpressure or the roof beeing in poor condition already before the event). Even 10000 t give 'only' 390 KT, but since the blast fraction of nuclear airbursts (for which the model used above is calibrated) is only about 50% and that of a meteor event is largely unknown, is 500 KT figure is realistic.-- SiriusB ( talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This page is an example of why some laymen should not be posting calculations they clearly cannot perform (hint Battery Included). A 17m diameter solid object (stony iron) does not weigh 10 tons. As someone pointed out if it was water it would weigh the best part of 3000 tons. If it was solid iron it would be over 20,000 tons. So numbers in the 7000 - 10000 range are very plausible. A large household refrigerator sized object of solid iron (say 4 cubic metres) would weigh in the 30 ton region. And fridge freezers are not the size of two decent sized houses placed on top of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.215.203 ( talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Must have been one helluva blast, CNN says "200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles) of glass were broken"! [12] (The lesson: never trust reliable sources on magnitude. Do your own calculations.) -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 04:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The sentence is about what NASA says. NASA says "10,000 tons", see this. here is what CNN said about what NASA said. The references to Reuters, etc do not state what NASA said. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Important to translate "shock wave" to " shock wave".
The shock wave concept was a big "reader necessity":
With the Russian meteor event the page-visits growed 18 times (!), from ~700 (year average) to ~13000.
The Meteor entering event at 2013-02-15 caused a peak in shock wave page views (pictured): the page views rose from 700 to 7000 in one day (!)... When people, perplexed, not understand WHY stone fragments (imagining pieces colliding) or explosion (imagining a big heat) not caused damage... The unique damage was by this strange concept, the "meteor's shock wave".
This is a pulse wave phenomena, propagating "energy of interest" through the "Web medium" :-)
-- Krauss ( talk) 12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes (!), and Meteoroid article, from (90 days) average 2000 to 65000 (33 times!) in one day. These scientific concepts (like meteoroid and shock wave) are "required to understand" concepts in the Web event report (and this article), them they "piggybacked on" the Russian-event's web-publicity. The 2012 DA14 receiveid page views for the same "piggybacked effect", but the "from ~19000 to ~350000" (18 times) statistcs effect, was also by the " Google Doodle effect" (see rapid second-day decreese comparing DA14, Meteoroid and shock wave statistics). -- Krauss ( talk) 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Intro "The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest object known to have encountered the Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event, and the only such event known to have resulted in a large number of injuries"
Damage and injuries "The Chelyabinsk meteor is thought to be the biggest meteor to hit Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event and the only known such event to result in a large number of injuries"
Basically the same sentence twice in the page in different sections - if this this intentional please ignore but I could not see a reason for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.155.165 ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It was one more big event in last century after Tunguska: Sihote-Alin in 1947, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhote-Alin_meteorite. It was also in Russia. That makes the claim 'biggest since Tunguska event' just plain wrong: Sihote-Alin meteorite was 70 ton estimated. -Andrei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.110.5 ( talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This was briefly mentioned in Archive 1 but not properly discussed.
Most news sources - and this article - talk about an "explosion"... however, all of the videos clearly show the streak disappearing, and not exploding. The trail, even after it gets really bright, simply continues solely in a forward direction and fizzles out. No frills. Not to mention that the NASA page doesn't even mention the word "explosion". I think we ought to rethink the way we have unambiguously and unquestioningly branded the shockwave as an "explosion". BigSteve ( talk) 23:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated if someone familiar with the situation could add the estimated composition of the meteorite: e.g., the density, metals, etc. If such information is unavailable, then we could add the estimated guesses by scientists based on where the object came from - as many objects in the same regions have similar compositions. If that proves impossible too, then we should state as much. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 23:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read the term "low trajectory" in several sources. Does anyone know what that implies? I gather it refers to the fact the trajectory was more horizontal than vertical. But was it atypical for a meteor? Would a "straight on" hit have been significantly worse? Spiel496 ( talk) 05:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
What would be the most apposite man-made object to compare the object to, in size terms? Would a house be about the same size? Prioryman ( talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but so many things are odd about this story that I can actually understand the conspiracy theorists this time.
I mean, seriously... it's a COINCIDENCE that the biggest meteor in 100 years reaches the Earth hours before the OTHER biggest meteor in 100 years?
And then, I've just read that authorities have "given up" looking for fragments of the meteor, and that the 8 meter hole in that lake's ice sheet was "not caused" by the meteor. So by WHAT do exactly round 8 meter holes in lake ice sheets get caused?
All very strange...
And am I the only one who finds it even stranger that NASA estimated a 500 kiloton BLAST from a 10-kiloton (10,000-ton) mass? This does not sound like (a) vaporization due to heat, or (b) a chemical explosion of a 10-kiloton mass of TNT. That seems to leave a nuclear mechanism... but many years of speculation about the Tunguska event have not come up with a plausible mechanism for a nuclear detonation in an incoming rock.
L1 Lagrangian point shepard = related ... this discussion got archived by someone trying to silence it - is this now what wiki is? - you dont want original research but you want to just accept all the next day pseudoscience that is being added to the wiki article - is wiki an encyclopedia or just a garage band fad?-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
once again removed non-sequitur comments from vandal editor - wiki is not a forum for comedy - wiki is a group of editors seeking to create an enclyclopedia-- 68.231.15.56 ( talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding section Coincidental asteroid approach:
Is that really true?
The inclination of the orbit of the asteriod, 2012_DA14, is only 11.60° (also illustrated in ), so I would expect it to move from west to east (if the asteroid is overtaking the Earth), and not from south to north. The Russian meteor moved from east to west according to the figure in section Object and entry, "The meteor's path, with Chelyabinsk marked."
-- Mortense ( talk) 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is an airburst update from the Minor Planet Center on Twitter quoting Lindley Johnson: L. Johnson Russian Airburst Update: ~17m in size, 6400-7700 tonnes, ~470kT TNT explosion at 10-20km altitude, 18km/s speed. Ex-Apollo NEO. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Russian Fireball Largest Ever Detected by CTBTO’s Infrasound Sensors (The blast was detected by 17 infrasound stations in the CTBTO’s network) -- Kheider ( talk) 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
We have only one news source in English that mentions KEF-2013 as a designation for the meteor. This turns out to be a translation error. The Russian news sources show that on Feb 15, President Medvedev was speaking at the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum 2013. The "designation" has nothing to do with the meteor. μηδείς ( talk) 16:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I heard back from the NASA meteor expert, and he says that about 14 of the 18 km/sec speed of the Russian meteor was from its orbit around the Sun - the rest from gravitational attraction from the Earth. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyhow, a few days ago (in the archives) there was discussion about whether the velocity was primarily from the orbit of the object around the Sun or from it falling to Earth. Most of it (approx. 78%) was from its orbit around the Sun. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any info indicating the apparent brightness of the meteor, and whether people felt a heat flash from the air-burst? The peak brightness was clearly much greater than the sun, which would suggest apparent magnitude about -27 to -30. Fig ( talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There was fragments which made it to the surface. So should it be called a Meteorite?-- ✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 06:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
===== The term "bolide" rather than "meteor" seems more accurate to describe the object passing through the atmosphere (a "meteor" usually being around the size of a grain of sand, or a little larger, and generating but a quick trail of light far above). "Meteorites" are the fragments that survived to reach the earth's surface. 75.95.173.67 ( talk) 21:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) [ It appears someone else already noted this issue below, and also correctly noted that the term "superbolide" may apply. ] 75.95.173.67 ( talk) 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
==== Not sure where best to mention this, but the article (and much of the media) incorrectly refer to the object as striking Earth -- For example, in the section entitled Damage and Injuries, a sentence begins with "The Chelyabinsk meteor is thought to be the biggest space object to hit Earth since....." If the object really had struck the planet surface, there would be a very large impact crater (and far more destruction than actually occurred). Instead, the object disintegrated in the planet's atmosphere (probably pancaking due to the enormous pressure differential on the leading and trailing edges, plus the heat buildup). Only a few small fragments actually reached the ground. The damage resulted from the shock wave from the air burst, hypersonic boom, etc. Must be a better way of phrasing what transpired than saying that it is "the biggest space object to hit Earth...." 75.95.173.67 ( talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't like this sentence in the summary, "The asteroid responsible for the meteor was significantly smaller than objects that are tracked through current efforts by space object scientists". However, several asteroids smaller then 17 metres have been detected e.g. 2008 TC3 was only 4.1 metres wide. Here's a list [16] of past close approaches with Near Earth Objects, 16 of 23 were <17 metres. -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 01:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Some editors mistakenly believe the object that entered the atmosphere was a "meteor" e.g. this non-sensical sentence "The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest object known to have entered the Earth's atmosphere since the 1908 Tunguska event". A meteor is the light emitted by a meteoroid (or comet or asteroid) as it burns up in the atmosphere. It was not the solid object, and it was most likely a small asteroid, as NASA says it was 17 metres wide. These are not flexible terms, they are officially recognised and defined used by scientists. Just because the media misuses them we should not, lest we start calling tsunamis tidal waves. --
Diamonddavej (
talk)
03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
[
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meteor ]
meteor
noun
Astronomy.
1a: a meteoroid that has entered the earth's atmosphere.
1b: a transient fiery streak in the sky produced by a meteoroid passing through the earth's atmosphere; a shooting star or bolide.
2: any person or object that moves, progresses, becomes famous, etc., with spectacular speed.
[
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meteor ]
Definition of meteor
noun
a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth’s atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light.
Origin:
mid 16th century (denoting any atmospheric phenomenon): from modern Latin meteorum, from Greek meteōron, neuter (used as a noun) of meteōros 'lofty'
[
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meteor ]
meteor
1: an atmospheric phenomenon (as lightning or a snowfall)
2a : any of the small particles of matter in the solar system that are directly observable only by their incandescence from frictional heating on entry into the atmosphere
2b : the streak of light produced by the passage of a meteor
--
Guy Macon (
talk)
05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Some definitions of a meteor says 0-10 meters in size. However, even NASA calls it a meteor! http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/news/asteroid20130215.html /Tomioni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.248.183 ( talk) 11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DA14, and the Russian event weren't the only space rocks. Cuba, and San Francisco also had reports of fireballs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.226.66 ( talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
According to 2013_Russian_meteor_event#Impact, divers did not find any meteorite in the water. Then how could it be possible to form a 6 metre-wide hole? Where is the meteorite that caused this hole? -- PlanetEditor ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Reference #75 is used to say that Phil Plait said that this and 2012 DA14 were nearly 500,000 km apart.
The relative velocity (V-relative) between Earth and DA14 was 7.8 km/sec. JPL Horizons shows that at 2013-Feb-15 03:20 UTC, DA14 was still more than 0.0025 AU (370,000 km; 230,000 mi) from Earth. -- Kheider ( talk) 11:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring of Russia
[ Report]
Part of report translation from Russian.
About fall the meteorite pieces, which were made by air burst in region of Chelyabinsk Oblast
By information, received from observers on ground meteorological stations in Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Oblasts, at 15 february 2013 since 7:00 till 8:00 (moscow time) was seeing luminous trail from meteorite pieces falling, which were generated as a result of air burst from the side of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (in the direction from nort-east to south-west) at the areas of population aggregates Talitsa (80 km to the east of Yekaterinburg), Sloboda Turinskaya (225 km to the nort-east of Yekaterinburg), Schelkun (75 km to the south), Asbest (80 km to the nort-east), Balandino Airport (Chelyabinsk), in region of Chelyabinsk city, and also in region of Koltsovo Airport (Yekaterinburg).
At 7:15 (moscow time) 15 february over aerodrome Chelyabinsk were observed multiple air bursts, following harsh chemical smell. By information of AMSC (Aviation Meteorological Station Civil) workers, air traffic controllers, crews of civil aviation aircrafts, during the night over the region of Chelyabinsk aerodrome were observed flights of luminous unidentified objects. By information of Head of AMC (Aviational Meteorological Center) Koltsovo (Yekaterinburg) at night also were obserevd flights of luminous objects.
15 february around from 7:30 till 8:00 (moscow time) over area of Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk Oblasts were observed a number of air bursts, probably from objects of space origin. At AMSC Balandino (Chelyabinsk) by a shock wave were broken windows and some partitions between rooms. There are no victims, one injured (cut by fragments of broken glass).
15 february at 8:15 (moscow time) Acting Head of Department of Ural AHEM (Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring) gave instructions to do more frequent measurements at Points of Observation of atmospheric air Pollution (POP) in Chelyabinsk and Yekaterinburg, and also more frequent measurements at Points of Observation of Radioactive Pollution of atmospheric air (PORP) and at meteorological stations.
Meteor126 95.220.27.197 ( talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Morning photo session near Chelyabinsk
Unfortunately copyrighted. Meteor126 (Ru.Wiki) 95.220.1.144 ( talk) 12:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the Damages and Injuries section provides (reliably sourced): "...."3,724 apartments, 671 educational institutions, 69 cultural facilities, 34 hospitals and clinics, 11 social facilities and five sport venues in the Chelyabinsk region..." that needed repairs as a result of the shock wave damage. Approximately 100,000 or so homeowners were affected according to Mikhail Yurevich...".
The list of damaged buildings was copied verbatim from the English news report. Some elaboration or clarification is needed: are the 3,724 apartments referring to apartment buildings, or to the separate apartment units within apartment buildings? If the latter, then the number of damaged apartment buildings would be significantly smaller. The other clarification required is for the vague 100K 'homeowners'; what type of buildings were these homes, condo units or stand-alone single-family homes, or a mix of both? I suspect the Russian or Chelyabinsk Region emergency authorities maintain a centralized listing of this data, and it would be good to access it for the latest figures as well. HarryZilber ( talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we sort out which direction the object was moving for the section "Unrelated Asteroid approach?" I pulled a statement from NASA saying that it was north to south while another source stated east to west. The article saying east to west is in Russian, so I'm unable to decipher it. Cheerioswithmilk ( talk) 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed to north to south, because Chelyabinsk is north of Chebarkul, because of (Quinn, Ben and agencies (February 15, 2013). "Asteroid misses Earth by 17,000 miles after meteor strikes Russia". The Guardian (Guardian News and Media). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/15/asteroid-misses-earth-meteor-strike. Retrieved February 15, 2013.) and because of this picture ( [19]). Scientific American, Meteor researcher Margaret Campbell-Brown [20]:
Petri Krohn's conclusion above that the meteor followed a more east to west direction trajectory, instead of the north to south direction mentioned by other sources, is correct. As he points out the shadows of the street light poles move west to east on the roadway below in this south looking view looking, which implies a definite east to west motion component of the light source. Moreover, the shadows of the light pole tips travel almost exactly parallel to the east west running lanes on the road below (along a line from about170 degrees to about 80 degrees). Thus the line traced out by the shadow tips on the road surface and the tip of one of the light pole tops in the center of the picture define a plane in which the light source had to have been moving. Given the proportions in the video, such as car sizes, light poles are likely about 10 m tall. The shortest pole shadow lengths appear to be about the height of the pole. This entails that the aforementioned plane would have an about 45 degree inclination toward the south, with the pole tip shadow line on the pavement forming the intersection between that plane and the plane defined by the pavement. The initial pole shadows pointed toward an about 300 degree heading (light source in the east southeast area and traveled over about the next 5 second time interval via the 360 reps. 0 degree heading to an about 40 degree heading. The brightest flash was recorded when the shadows pointed toward an about 340 degree heading. If the meteor came in on a trajectory tangential to the earths surface, i.e. on a grazing trajectory, it would have to have been traveling pretty much exactly from east to west. However, if the meteor came in on a path inclined to the local Chelyabinsk horizon plane, then it must have come in from an E to SE direction, traveling toward W to NW. The steeper the more from a southerly direction.
The meteor "flashed" brightly when it was SSE of Chelyabinsk at an about 160 degree heading (to go with the above mentioned about 340 degree heading of the light pole shadow at the time of the "flash"). Because the meteor presumably "burst" about 20 to 30 km above ground, and given the above mentioned putative motion planes inclination, that "flash" had to have occurred above an area located about 20 to 30 km SSE of Chelyabinsk. This puts the "flash" location roughly SSE and halfway between Chelyabinsk and Yemanzhelinsk and pretty much exactly due east from Chebarkul and its adjacent lake, where some of the fragments supposedly impacted on earth. Also, over the roughly 5 Seconds long period of the "light show" the shadow of the pole tips traveled about 3 pole heights along the pavement from west to east, or about 30 m given the above assumptions. This makes for an about 6 m/s west to east motion for the pole tips shadow. Given the 10 m light pole height, the 45 degree inclination of the putative plane of motion of the meteor, and the roughly 20 to 30 km SSE location of the "flash" this results in an about 15 km/s east west component for the meteors velocity. This leaves very little for a south to north velocity component, considering the 15 to 18 km/s total velocity estimated by others for this meteor. Looks like a grazing trajectory with an approach from E to ESE toward W to WNW is a pretty good guess after all. A "south to north" trajectory is not likely a good guess, and a "north to south" trajectory is impossible given the evidence. Jbwischki ( talk) 23:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC),
1.178.161.116 ( talk) 09:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
See: The latest orbit determined by Dave Clark (and yes, the meteor came roughly from the East, not from the North as stated in the initial NASA reports) -- Kheider ( talk) 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the from south to north etc. because these directions are useless in Celestial mechanics. Firstly, these are directions in the surface of the Earth. Secondly, there were hours between the two events. Therefore the Earth was in different orientation. Kondormari ( talk) 09:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have replaced the link to the "Bleeding Love" dash cam video because it shows the event from just before atmospheric entry, complete with timestamps, and furthermore it seems that the article would be woefully incomplete without some of that fabled and iconic Russian wide-angle dash cam footage. (WP:ELNEVER isn't an issue inasmuch as the song's copyright holder hasn't asserted his copyright in the U.S.; the video remains up on YouTube, although from what I gather it is unavailable in Germany.) kencf0618 ( talk) 01:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Zuluaga2013 agrees with the data posted on The American Meteor Society: Large Daytime Fireball Hits Russia -- Kheider ( talk) 12:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Parameter |
aphelion (Q) |
perihelion (q) |
Semi-major axis (a) |
eccentricity (e) |
inclination (i) |
Longitude ascending node (Ω) |
Argument of perihelion (ω) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Units | AU | (°) | |||||
AMS | 2.53 | 0.80 | 1.66 | 0.52 | 4.05° | 326.43° | 116.0° |
Zuluaga2013 | 2.64 | 0.82 | 1.73 | 0.51 | 3.45° | 326.70° | 120.62° |
iau3423 | 2.33 | 0.768 | 1.55 | 0.50 | 3.6° | 326.41° | 109.7° |
Preliminary Orbit of the Chelyabinsk Meteoroid.mp4 (Jorge Zuluaga) -- Kheider ( talk) 20:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"The impacting asteroid came from the constellation Pegasus in the Northern hemisphere."
Please clarify this sentence, because Pegasus is 38 million light-years from Earth. Maybe they imply it came from that general direction?. Also, the same authors reported the asteroid belongs the Apollo asteroid belt, which makes much more sense. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Under the media coverage section the first sentence is this: "The Russian government put out a brief statement within an hour of the event." The citation is for an article from The Atlantic called How a D.C. Hockey Fan Site Got the Russian Meteorite Story Before the AP. No where in this article does it mention the brief put out by the Russian government. This source, while reputable, it not appropriate for this quote. I propose editing this into two sentences.
I didn't want to edit the page directly because I think it warrants a discussion about if citing who broke the news in the US is really necessary. -- Kaleidscope-Eyes ( talk) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Added a note about the erroneous reporting that the damage was due to sonic boom. This has become a widespread misconception. Did not add any particular reference because erroneous reporting was widespread across many media outlets. Joncolvin ( talk) 19:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)