4 Vesta has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 Vesta is part of the Asteroid belt series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Following [1] (Jan 9, 1998) the density of Vesta is only 3.9 ± 0.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Is this more recent/fiable than the current value of 3.3g/cm3?
I reworked the whole article -- please somebody check the grammar since my Engrish is not perfect Jyril 21:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
After reading through a few papers on the topic, i've tried to put what i've gleaned into the article before I forget it or lose the notes ;-). The end result seems to have been a major reorganisation. Deuar 21:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet... The fact that it's visible to the naked eye seems like it only had bad luck not being picked as a classical planet. Tesseract501 March 23, 2006.
Needs some expansion on the discovery. Michaelbusch 18:08, 17 Aug 2006 (UTC)
Ceres is still the largest asteroid even though Ceres is also a 'dwarf planet'. Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) even though it is also a 'dwarf planet'.
Regarding the Diameter: What does the third measurement (for irregular shapes) indicate? Am I correct to assume that the first measurement indicates the longest axis at the equator, and the second measurement the polar axis? If so, is the third measurement the secondary equatorial axis (at right angle form the longest equatorial axis)? Or is it the mean diameter or something else? Thanks ---- Tesseract501 March 23, 2006.
For rotation to be stable over long timescales, the shortest DEEVE diameter must correspond to the axis of rotation and the two others are the major and minor axes of the ellipse formed by the DEEVE's intersection with the equatorial plane. Obviously, all three are at right angles to each other. Almost all objects in single-axis rotation, not tumbling (we can measure this by lightcurve and radar), so we can define the axes properly. 'DEEVE' stands for dynamically-equivalent equal-volume ellipsoid. It is an ellipsoid with equal volume and equal moments of inertia to a given asteroid. Such an object has the same mass, volume, and density as the target asteroid and is the standard for computing tri-axial ellipsoid dimensions. Michaelbusch 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Next to "Mean surface temperature", on the Physical Characteristics table, the min and max temperatures are given, the temperature Extremes for "4 Vesta", but not the actual "Mean surface temperature" for the asteroid. Obviously, the mean is easy to calculate, even for my little brain, from the min and max data but still there is an inconsistency in this table. Actually, I find the min max temperature more interesting data than just the mean by itself.
We cannot specify a mean temperature by taking the average of min and max, because we don't know the distribution of temperature across the surface of the asteroid. Even the min and max are uncertain, particularly the minimum (because we have little data on the nightside). We can calculate an average temperature for the surface by taking the albedo and average cross-section, using those to compute the total solar energy incident, then dividing that by the effective surface area of the object to get the mean power radiated per unit area. However, this is not the same as a geometric mean across the surface. Michaelbusch 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone elaborate on how we know the meteorites originated on Vesta, and not some other asteroid? Gary 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The spectra of the V-type asteroids, as well as the HED meteorites, match Vesta's very distinctive spectrum. The meteorites probably didn't come directly from Vesta, but we can assume that they have been through a similar history (see the physical properties section) Michaelbusch 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition the debris form 4 Vesta's great polar crater should be a rich source of terrestrial meteorites, "about 5 percent of all meteorites we find on Earth are a result of this [Vesta's polar crater] single ancient crash in deep space." [2] Pulu ( talk) 23:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Good article, keep up the good work -- Nbound 00:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a little more information, but I'm not sure where to link for MPC numbers. Please help! Adam Cuerden talk 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
...Weel, it was deleted. Still, it WAS accurate and cited, (and involved a fair bit of work to make the new symbol) so I paste the cut text here if anyone sees a better way to work it in. It starts just after the opening as it stands now.
Sorry about that, got confused and was sttressing out a bit over an oral report at the time. Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
---
A note for the record: from what I can tell, the simple square with Aries-horns was Gauss's original design. Some contemporaries made more elaborate drawings of the actual altar in Rome. The other simple version seems to be from a woodcut in Koch (1930). So this isn't a matter of complex to simple. (There were similar complex variants of Juno and other asteroids, but no one bothered to upload them to WP.) And the modern symbol was created for astrology in the 1970s. — kwami ( talk) 08:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
According to http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/iau0603_Q_A2.html , Ceres is no longer an asteroid. 132.205.44.128 05:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You can also see Talk Ceres and Talk kheider. I believe that Ceres is still an asteroid until an official statement is released. A poorly worded press release is not very reliable. Vesta may be a Dwarf Planet Remnant, and thus may not be an asteroid *IF* (1) the rule: "Once a dwarf planet, always a dwarf planet" is applied and (2) Dwarf Planets are not asteroids. -- Kheider 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually that points to Talk Asteroid. So yes, the conversation is in multiple locations. :-) -- Kheider 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A color image of Vesta is available:
— RJH ( talk) 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You can not allows easily diagram 3 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional drawing.
A hidden comment showed the mass as having 4 sig figs, so I changed the info box to match. However, I don't have access to the article. 4 seems awfully precise. Can someone confirm the error? Even in the abstract it's clear that there's at least 3 sig figs, and we only had two. kwami ( talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually the masses of the major asteroids are still poorly known. A lot of it depends on the true mass of Ceres and Pallas. Of the large asteroids, Vesta appears to have the best known mass. Some non-PDF reading: Asteroid Masses and Densities, Hilton (Masses of the Largest Asteroids), New determination of the mass of Pallas -- Kheider ( talk) 15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria.
Overall, this article is very well-written and, for the most part, well-referenced. Comprehensiveness, neutrality, stability, and images are all fine. A few concerns came up during my review:
I will place this on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If progress is being made, an extension will be granted if necessary. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting note: While looking for sources for the "Exploration" section, I came across this article published by Reuters. Facts #2 and 3 looked familiar, so I checked an old revision of Wikipedia's 4 Vesta article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=4_Vesta&oldid=160069737, last edited three days before the Reuters article). It turns out that Reuters copied them and pasted them directly from here. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for warning me about the possible de-listing GaryColemanFan, I've been busy with other projects off of Wikipedia. I'll get right to assisting with the assessment. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In Favor per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles:
However I'm not sure what wiki's standard is about it being "current" but obviously the Dawn mission justifies that a bit, and I don't know if all the links are reliable, can someone else check this or tell me how to do it?-- IdLoveOne ( talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Q. Is the following paragraph really needed in an article about Vesta?
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to RJH, the total cost of the mission doesn't seem particularly important. Since there was no soucred provided, I removed that sentence and combined the final two paragraphs.
All of my concerns have now been addressed, so I am going to close this reassessment and keep this article listed as a GA. Thanks you to everyone who helped, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Good, but what about Pallas, Hygiea and Juno? -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can s.o. add the error estimates for the diameters? I don't have access to the ref. Even with the PD error bars for Pallas it's clear the two overlap, but it would be nice to be accurate rather than just precise. kwami ( talk) 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) OR Baer2009 ==> Jim Baer (2009).
"Recent Asteroid Mass Determinations". Personal Website. Retrieved 2008-12-06. The Hubble reference is from
1997. --
Kheider (
talk) 02:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)The synodic period of 4 Vesta is about 1.38 years. So for an opposition on a particular date, the 3rd, 5th and 8th following oppositions will be at close to the same calendar date. The less favorable oppositions that were tagged with a when template and "What year?" comment recur whenever the opposition happens in late autumn. With my calculator I get oppositions near Nov. 18th on 2012, 2016, 2019 and 2023. A planetarium program could give exact dates. I am not sure what is best to put into the article. -- Fartherred ( talk) 04:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
With
Horizons I get: (Date, Distance, Sun-Earth-Vesta angle)
2012-Dec-07 1.589AU 173.96°
2017-Jan-18 1.522AU 177.13°
2019-Nov-13 1.565AU 170.49°
--
Kheider (
talk) 07:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a good article at the Max Planck Society discussing some new findings about the interior of Vesta. Link The original article is from Icarus through Elsevier and is located here. -- Xession ( talk) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Claiming 4 Vesta is the ONLY remnant protoplanet is a bad idea in IMHO. The Kuiper belt likely has many such objects. 4 Vesta may be the only remnant protoplanet in the asteroid belt, but I also think Ceres and 2 Pallas can claim to be protoplanets. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
All three big asteroids have been called "protoplanets". And Vesta but not Ceres?
What will the vestan season be when DAWN arrives? The visit will be only 0.2 vestan years, so there won't be a lot of change if one hemisphere is in winter. — kwami ( talk) 14:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. In the image from July 17,
the southern hemisphere is half in shadow. But on July 9,
it was fully illuminated. Vestian seasons don't change in a week, and rotation shouldn't make any difference, so what's going on? Or is that not the southern crater that we're seeing? — kwami ( talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This image is captioned as centered at 55°S. The mountain isn't in the center of the image, though. But this sure does look like the peak seen in Hubble images. I'd just always assumed that was at the pole due to angular-momentum constraints. — kwami ( talk) 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this the main reason actually the engines, or is it at least as much that the very low gravity enables the craft to escape orbit so much more easily than from say a planet? 109.153.234.156 ( talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
does anyone have access to the rotation clip they showed today? That would be an awesome header image, like we have for Pluto.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Provisional map, though only ±30°, so I don't know if it's worth uploading. — kwami ( talk) 05:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This is now officially the coolest infobox photo of all articles in all Wikipedias.-- Cam ( talk) 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the rotating clip in the infobox? Was there a reason for its removal? I thought it looked fantastic the way it was - I think an animated picture conveys a lot more information than a still photograph. Danskheart ( talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A casual reader should be offered an immediate answer to the obvious question, What does the 4 in the name mean? A reader with more interest should be offered a detailed history of the name, and particularly when the modern name was first used, and when the modern form became the dominant form of reference.- 96.237.15.189 ( talk) 12:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
By 1851 there were 15 known asteroids, all but one with their own symbol. The symbols grew increasingly complex as the number of objects grew, and, as they had to be drawn by hand, astronomers found some of them difficult. This difficulty was addressed by Benjamin Apthorp Gould in 1851, who suggested numbering asteroids in their order of discovery, and placing this number in a circle as the symbol for the asteroid, such as ④ for the fourth asteroid, Vesta. This practice was soon coupled with the name itself into an official number-name designation, "④ Vesta", as the number of minor planets increased. By ca 1858, the circle had been simplified to parentheses, "(4)" and "(4) Vesta", which was easier to typeset. Other punctuation such as "4) Vesta" and "4, Vesta" was also used, but had more or less completely died out by 1949. [1]
So. I put the explanation and history of the name in the article. 3 hours later, someone took it out. Brillant. I won't edit war. The next move is yours.- 96.237.15.189 ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"The explanation is not distinct to Vesta."
But, the explanation IS distinct to Vesta! Which is why it belongs here in perpetuity, regardless of whether other articles retain similiar material now or in the future. It is appropriate for both of these articles to have this material, but over time the other article may use entirely different examples.- 96.237.15.189 ( talk) 13:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
References
Since the article is supposed to be easily read by lay persons and the well known name of Vesta is "Vesta", not the technical name "4 Vesta", I don't understand why the article appears under the name "4 Vesta" or why this planetoid is called "4 Vesta" in some other articles (e.g., HED meteorite). I wonder if even astronomers in research papers consistently call it "4 Vesta". I propose moving this page to "Vesta" with (of course) a redirect from "4 Vesta", having the technical name "4 Vesta" only mentioned in this and other articles, not used every time. I argue for this based on the analogy with the " Samuel Langhorne Clemens" article (there is none; it's a redirect to Mark Twain) and many similar cases. Zaslav ( talk) 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
After seeing the original claim that Vesta is "the second largest asteroid" edited out in one spot, (but not all spots), along with an authoritative-looking note that Vesta is yet to be clearly determined to be either the 2nd or 3rd largest asteroid, I removed the (remaining) fragments also stating that is was "2nd largest", since this no longer appeared to be confirmed.
But my edits were then reverted, and now I am confused.
It looks like the "2nd place in size" status is being removed in some areas-- but left in place (and defended) in other areas, which is inconsistent.
Can we get a resolution on what to do here, so the article can be kept factually consistent?
(See also reference to "Ceres" in article opening that still mentions Vesta as being the "2nd largest asteroid").
Thanks,
Writeonandon ( talk) 17:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The currently stated dimensions of Vesta are from 14 years ago. Wouldn't the dimensions be known far more accurately now that Dawn is orbit around Vesta? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Does the huge impact basin near Vesta's south pole have a name? -- JorisvS ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And why are we not getting any true-color shots? — kwami ( talk) 11:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Rheasilvia. [5] [6] -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The file Vesta from 265000 km cropped 260.jpg, has been flagged for tranfer to Commons by Svenbot. The same image, slightly differently cropped, already exists there ( File:Vesta image by Dawn probe.jpg). So I'd say it can simply be deleted. The uncropped version ( File:Vesta from 265000 km.jpg) does not exist on Commons and has also be flagged. I don't see how an uncropped version could have any added value, but if someone disagrees... . -- JorisvS ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/multimedia/pia14715.html or similar is needed. 94.30.84.71 ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Vesta has an iron core. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like planetary dynamics to me. I don't think most asteroids have iron cores. Maybe a new category will be needed for Vesta, not quite a dwarf planet, but not just a big space rock either. Have any citations along these lines emerged?
69.171.160.247 ( talk) 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this page needs a link to a new page listing the recently announced names of surface features on Vesta. I haven't had a chance to check all of them myself, but the craters seem to be named after well-known Roman families.
http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/SearchResults?target=VESTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.138.229 ( talk) 05:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In Early measurements, it's said: «William H. Pickering produced an estimated diameter of 513 ± 17 km in 1879, etc.», reporting as source Hughes, D. W (1994). How did you identified which Pickering brother made the measurments? As Hughes reports as source an article of Edward Charles Pickering (Pickering, E. C., 1879, Annals Astron. Obs. Harvard, 11, part 2, p. 291), the identification may be wrong. -- Harlock81 ( talk) 08:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Just pick a Pickering and you'll be fine. Neither will be picky about it.
69.171.160.247 ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about Vesta's northern polar region in this animation. Is the flattening here real or just not included because that part has not been mapped (yet)? Hubble images do not show such flattening. -- JorisvS ( talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the animation just cuts off. Per P.C., Dawn's mission is being timed to enable full coverage of the north pole. The original schedule would have had Dawn leaving prior to that. — kwami ( talk) 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Vesta and some other asteroids.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
Vesta has been recently determined to be a dwarf planet, not an asteroid. -- 76.180.168.219 ( talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw on one of the science channels today that the lead scientist studying Vesta for NASA (as well as a number of his research team members) now believe that Vesta meets the requirements to be classified as a "dwarf planet". Yet I have also seen it listed in many places as an asteroid.
It seems that if there is credible mainstream scientific discussion about listing Vesta as a dwarf planet that this deserves a section in the article. Not a section that says that Vesta is one, but that reassigning it's status is being recommended by key researchers in the scientific mainstream. Such a debate is worthy of an article mention, although I doubt the issue will be settled for some time. The same science report today did quote other scientists who do not agree that Vesta is a dwarf planet, but believe instead that it is a "proto-planet" (stillborn embryonic planet, so to speak). 64.134.152.48 ( talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I am totally not competent to add to this article, but the newly-published data from Dawn presented at EGU (article here [7] and LOADS of info here [8]) seem to have a lot of additional facts that might improve the article. Kevin/Last1in ( talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Its now classified as a protoplanet. Someone should update this. mentioned in this article: http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/10/space-rock-vesta-promoted-to-protoplanet/?hpt=hp_c2. I dont think this should be classified as a GA until this is fixed. Arowhun ( talk) 20:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Moving here:
We should be able to update this from Dawn. Also, 'east' and 'west' have the opposite meanings for Hubble and the Dawn team (off by 155°), so the terms are ambiguous. — kwami ( talk) 09:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The 2010-2011 section in "Visibility" seems irrelevant to me. Should it be deleted? VirtualDave 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave ( talk • contribs)
For its current rotation rate Vesta's equilibrium figure would have an oblateness of 0.128. Its actual oblateness is 0.21. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/2115.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.245.205 ( talk) 17:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Agmartin ( talk) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Dawn at Vesta: testing the protoplanetary paradigm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6082/684 states in note 19 "Vesta’s shape and the values of J2, C22, and S22 (C22,0.0043590 T 0.0000003; S22, 0.000254 T 0.000005) indicate that Vesta is not currently in hydrostatic equilibrium," (search for title on http://scholar.google.com/ if unable to view sciencemag articles), also discussed by the authors in THE GRAVITY FIELD OF VESTA AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERIOR STRUCTURE http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2012/pdf/2600.pdf Agmartin ( talk) 17:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
How much does Vesta deviate from a triaxial ellipsoid when ignoring the Rheasilvia basin? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks like there are several large, degraded craters on Vesta beside Rheasilivia/Veneneia. Is that what Feralia Planitia is? — kwami ( talk) 21:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
維斯塔 wéisītǎ, with an obscure ī, is the closest Chinese approximation of the Latin pronunciation westa.
"Obscure i" is not a correct linguistic term--can we give IPA here, or a proper description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.7.34 ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the wikilink on Claudia crater in a photo caption, because it adds nothing useful. Nobody is going to write an article about a tiny crater which has the sole distinction of being used for the zero meridian on Vesta. That crater has no other distinguishing characteristics that would justify an article, so restoring the wikilink will leave this permanently redlinked. Is there any point to doing that?
WP:WTAF was written specifically for lists, but it applies in general articles as well, as a variation of WP:OVERLINK. No need to create links that just make the text harder to read. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 17:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states that the equatorial rotation velocity of Vesta is 257.5 m/s. This however is the orbital velocity of a Low Vesta Orbit. Using the other numbers, 572.6 km for equatorial diameter and 5.342 h for rotational period I get an equatorial rotation velocity of 93.54 m/s. Should I replace the value? The 257.5 m/s number is not from an external source anyway. 46.230.130.173 ( talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 4 Vesta. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/returnprepeph.cgi?d=b2011&o=00004When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know how close Vesta can get to Ceres since they can meet if you look on their orbits from "above". 212.186.0.174 ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
4 Vesta has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 Vesta is part of the Asteroid belt series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Following [1] (Jan 9, 1998) the density of Vesta is only 3.9 ± 0.3 grams per cubic centimeter. Is this more recent/fiable than the current value of 3.3g/cm3?
I reworked the whole article -- please somebody check the grammar since my Engrish is not perfect Jyril 21:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
After reading through a few papers on the topic, i've tried to put what i've gleaned into the article before I forget it or lose the notes ;-). The end result seems to have been a major reorganisation. Deuar 21:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet... The fact that it's visible to the naked eye seems like it only had bad luck not being picked as a classical planet. Tesseract501 March 23, 2006.
Needs some expansion on the discovery. Michaelbusch 18:08, 17 Aug 2006 (UTC)
Ceres is still the largest asteroid even though Ceres is also a 'dwarf planet'. Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) even though it is also a 'dwarf planet'.
Regarding the Diameter: What does the third measurement (for irregular shapes) indicate? Am I correct to assume that the first measurement indicates the longest axis at the equator, and the second measurement the polar axis? If so, is the third measurement the secondary equatorial axis (at right angle form the longest equatorial axis)? Or is it the mean diameter or something else? Thanks ---- Tesseract501 March 23, 2006.
For rotation to be stable over long timescales, the shortest DEEVE diameter must correspond to the axis of rotation and the two others are the major and minor axes of the ellipse formed by the DEEVE's intersection with the equatorial plane. Obviously, all three are at right angles to each other. Almost all objects in single-axis rotation, not tumbling (we can measure this by lightcurve and radar), so we can define the axes properly. 'DEEVE' stands for dynamically-equivalent equal-volume ellipsoid. It is an ellipsoid with equal volume and equal moments of inertia to a given asteroid. Such an object has the same mass, volume, and density as the target asteroid and is the standard for computing tri-axial ellipsoid dimensions. Michaelbusch 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Next to "Mean surface temperature", on the Physical Characteristics table, the min and max temperatures are given, the temperature Extremes for "4 Vesta", but not the actual "Mean surface temperature" for the asteroid. Obviously, the mean is easy to calculate, even for my little brain, from the min and max data but still there is an inconsistency in this table. Actually, I find the min max temperature more interesting data than just the mean by itself.
We cannot specify a mean temperature by taking the average of min and max, because we don't know the distribution of temperature across the surface of the asteroid. Even the min and max are uncertain, particularly the minimum (because we have little data on the nightside). We can calculate an average temperature for the surface by taking the albedo and average cross-section, using those to compute the total solar energy incident, then dividing that by the effective surface area of the object to get the mean power radiated per unit area. However, this is not the same as a geometric mean across the surface. Michaelbusch 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone elaborate on how we know the meteorites originated on Vesta, and not some other asteroid? Gary 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The spectra of the V-type asteroids, as well as the HED meteorites, match Vesta's very distinctive spectrum. The meteorites probably didn't come directly from Vesta, but we can assume that they have been through a similar history (see the physical properties section) Michaelbusch 16:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition the debris form 4 Vesta's great polar crater should be a rich source of terrestrial meteorites, "about 5 percent of all meteorites we find on Earth are a result of this [Vesta's polar crater] single ancient crash in deep space." [2] Pulu ( talk) 23:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Good article, keep up the good work -- Nbound 00:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a little more information, but I'm not sure where to link for MPC numbers. Please help! Adam Cuerden talk 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
...Weel, it was deleted. Still, it WAS accurate and cited, (and involved a fair bit of work to make the new symbol) so I paste the cut text here if anyone sees a better way to work it in. It starts just after the opening as it stands now.
Sorry about that, got confused and was sttressing out a bit over an oral report at the time. Adam Cuerden talk 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
---
A note for the record: from what I can tell, the simple square with Aries-horns was Gauss's original design. Some contemporaries made more elaborate drawings of the actual altar in Rome. The other simple version seems to be from a woodcut in Koch (1930). So this isn't a matter of complex to simple. (There were similar complex variants of Juno and other asteroids, but no one bothered to upload them to WP.) And the modern symbol was created for astrology in the 1970s. — kwami ( talk) 08:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
According to http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/iau0603_Q_A2.html , Ceres is no longer an asteroid. 132.205.44.128 05:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You can also see Talk Ceres and Talk kheider. I believe that Ceres is still an asteroid until an official statement is released. A poorly worded press release is not very reliable. Vesta may be a Dwarf Planet Remnant, and thus may not be an asteroid *IF* (1) the rule: "Once a dwarf planet, always a dwarf planet" is applied and (2) Dwarf Planets are not asteroids. -- Kheider 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually that points to Talk Asteroid. So yes, the conversation is in multiple locations. :-) -- Kheider 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A color image of Vesta is available:
— RJH ( talk) 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You can not allows easily diagram 3 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional drawing.
A hidden comment showed the mass as having 4 sig figs, so I changed the info box to match. However, I don't have access to the article. 4 seems awfully precise. Can someone confirm the error? Even in the abstract it's clear that there's at least 3 sig figs, and we only had two. kwami ( talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually the masses of the major asteroids are still poorly known. A lot of it depends on the true mass of Ceres and Pallas. Of the large asteroids, Vesta appears to have the best known mass. Some non-PDF reading: Asteroid Masses and Densities, Hilton (Masses of the Largest Asteroids), New determination of the mass of Pallas -- Kheider ( talk) 15:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria.
Overall, this article is very well-written and, for the most part, well-referenced. Comprehensiveness, neutrality, stability, and images are all fine. A few concerns came up during my review:
I will place this on hold for a week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If progress is being made, an extension will be granted if necessary. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting note: While looking for sources for the "Exploration" section, I came across this article published by Reuters. Facts #2 and 3 looked familiar, so I checked an old revision of Wikipedia's 4 Vesta article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=4_Vesta&oldid=160069737, last edited three days before the Reuters article). It turns out that Reuters copied them and pasted them directly from here. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for warning me about the possible de-listing GaryColemanFan, I've been busy with other projects off of Wikipedia. I'll get right to assisting with the assessment. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In Favor per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles:
However I'm not sure what wiki's standard is about it being "current" but obviously the Dawn mission justifies that a bit, and I don't know if all the links are reliable, can someone else check this or tell me how to do it?-- IdLoveOne ( talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Q. Is the following paragraph really needed in an article about Vesta?
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to RJH, the total cost of the mission doesn't seem particularly important. Since there was no soucred provided, I removed that sentence and combined the final two paragraphs.
All of my concerns have now been addressed, so I am going to close this reassessment and keep this article listed as a GA. Thanks you to everyone who helped, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Good, but what about Pallas, Hygiea and Juno? -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can s.o. add the error estimates for the diameters? I don't have access to the ref. Even with the PD error bars for Pallas it's clear the two overlap, but it would be nice to be accurate rather than just precise. kwami ( talk) 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) OR Baer2009 ==> Jim Baer (2009).
"Recent Asteroid Mass Determinations". Personal Website. Retrieved 2008-12-06. The Hubble reference is from
1997. --
Kheider (
talk) 02:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)The synodic period of 4 Vesta is about 1.38 years. So for an opposition on a particular date, the 3rd, 5th and 8th following oppositions will be at close to the same calendar date. The less favorable oppositions that were tagged with a when template and "What year?" comment recur whenever the opposition happens in late autumn. With my calculator I get oppositions near Nov. 18th on 2012, 2016, 2019 and 2023. A planetarium program could give exact dates. I am not sure what is best to put into the article. -- Fartherred ( talk) 04:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
With
Horizons I get: (Date, Distance, Sun-Earth-Vesta angle)
2012-Dec-07 1.589AU 173.96°
2017-Jan-18 1.522AU 177.13°
2019-Nov-13 1.565AU 170.49°
--
Kheider (
talk) 07:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a good article at the Max Planck Society discussing some new findings about the interior of Vesta. Link The original article is from Icarus through Elsevier and is located here. -- Xession ( talk) 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Claiming 4 Vesta is the ONLY remnant protoplanet is a bad idea in IMHO. The Kuiper belt likely has many such objects. 4 Vesta may be the only remnant protoplanet in the asteroid belt, but I also think Ceres and 2 Pallas can claim to be protoplanets. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
All three big asteroids have been called "protoplanets". And Vesta but not Ceres?
What will the vestan season be when DAWN arrives? The visit will be only 0.2 vestan years, so there won't be a lot of change if one hemisphere is in winter. — kwami ( talk) 14:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. In the image from July 17,
the southern hemisphere is half in shadow. But on July 9,
it was fully illuminated. Vestian seasons don't change in a week, and rotation shouldn't make any difference, so what's going on? Or is that not the southern crater that we're seeing? — kwami ( talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This image is captioned as centered at 55°S. The mountain isn't in the center of the image, though. But this sure does look like the peak seen in Hubble images. I'd just always assumed that was at the pole due to angular-momentum constraints. — kwami ( talk) 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this the main reason actually the engines, or is it at least as much that the very low gravity enables the craft to escape orbit so much more easily than from say a planet? 109.153.234.156 ( talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
does anyone have access to the rotation clip they showed today? That would be an awesome header image, like we have for Pluto.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Provisional map, though only ±30°, so I don't know if it's worth uploading. — kwami ( talk) 05:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This is now officially the coolest infobox photo of all articles in all Wikipedias.-- Cam ( talk) 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the rotating clip in the infobox? Was there a reason for its removal? I thought it looked fantastic the way it was - I think an animated picture conveys a lot more information than a still photograph. Danskheart ( talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A casual reader should be offered an immediate answer to the obvious question, What does the 4 in the name mean? A reader with more interest should be offered a detailed history of the name, and particularly when the modern name was first used, and when the modern form became the dominant form of reference.- 96.237.15.189 ( talk) 12:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
By 1851 there were 15 known asteroids, all but one with their own symbol. The symbols grew increasingly complex as the number of objects grew, and, as they had to be drawn by hand, astronomers found some of them difficult. This difficulty was addressed by Benjamin Apthorp Gould in 1851, who suggested numbering asteroids in their order of discovery, and placing this number in a circle as the symbol for the asteroid, such as ④ for the fourth asteroid, Vesta. This practice was soon coupled with the name itself into an official number-name designation, "④ Vesta", as the number of minor planets increased. By ca 1858, the circle had been simplified to parentheses, "(4)" and "(4) Vesta", which was easier to typeset. Other punctuation such as "4) Vesta" and "4, Vesta" was also used, but had more or less completely died out by 1949. [1]
So. I put the explanation and history of the name in the article. 3 hours later, someone took it out. Brillant. I won't edit war. The next move is yours.- 96.237.15.189 ( talk) 23:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"The explanation is not distinct to Vesta."
But, the explanation IS distinct to Vesta! Which is why it belongs here in perpetuity, regardless of whether other articles retain similiar material now or in the future. It is appropriate for both of these articles to have this material, but over time the other article may use entirely different examples.- 96.237.15.189 ( talk) 13:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
References
Since the article is supposed to be easily read by lay persons and the well known name of Vesta is "Vesta", not the technical name "4 Vesta", I don't understand why the article appears under the name "4 Vesta" or why this planetoid is called "4 Vesta" in some other articles (e.g., HED meteorite). I wonder if even astronomers in research papers consistently call it "4 Vesta". I propose moving this page to "Vesta" with (of course) a redirect from "4 Vesta", having the technical name "4 Vesta" only mentioned in this and other articles, not used every time. I argue for this based on the analogy with the " Samuel Langhorne Clemens" article (there is none; it's a redirect to Mark Twain) and many similar cases. Zaslav ( talk) 02:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
After seeing the original claim that Vesta is "the second largest asteroid" edited out in one spot, (but not all spots), along with an authoritative-looking note that Vesta is yet to be clearly determined to be either the 2nd or 3rd largest asteroid, I removed the (remaining) fragments also stating that is was "2nd largest", since this no longer appeared to be confirmed.
But my edits were then reverted, and now I am confused.
It looks like the "2nd place in size" status is being removed in some areas-- but left in place (and defended) in other areas, which is inconsistent.
Can we get a resolution on what to do here, so the article can be kept factually consistent?
(See also reference to "Ceres" in article opening that still mentions Vesta as being the "2nd largest asteroid").
Thanks,
Writeonandon ( talk) 17:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The currently stated dimensions of Vesta are from 14 years ago. Wouldn't the dimensions be known far more accurately now that Dawn is orbit around Vesta? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Does the huge impact basin near Vesta's south pole have a name? -- JorisvS ( talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And why are we not getting any true-color shots? — kwami ( talk) 11:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Rheasilvia. [5] [6] -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The file Vesta from 265000 km cropped 260.jpg, has been flagged for tranfer to Commons by Svenbot. The same image, slightly differently cropped, already exists there ( File:Vesta image by Dawn probe.jpg). So I'd say it can simply be deleted. The uncropped version ( File:Vesta from 265000 km.jpg) does not exist on Commons and has also be flagged. I don't see how an uncropped version could have any added value, but if someone disagrees... . -- JorisvS ( talk) 17:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/multimedia/pia14715.html or similar is needed. 94.30.84.71 ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Vesta has an iron core. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like planetary dynamics to me. I don't think most asteroids have iron cores. Maybe a new category will be needed for Vesta, not quite a dwarf planet, but not just a big space rock either. Have any citations along these lines emerged?
69.171.160.247 ( talk) 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this page needs a link to a new page listing the recently announced names of surface features on Vesta. I haven't had a chance to check all of them myself, but the craters seem to be named after well-known Roman families.
http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/SearchResults?target=VESTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.138.229 ( talk) 05:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In Early measurements, it's said: «William H. Pickering produced an estimated diameter of 513 ± 17 km in 1879, etc.», reporting as source Hughes, D. W (1994). How did you identified which Pickering brother made the measurments? As Hughes reports as source an article of Edward Charles Pickering (Pickering, E. C., 1879, Annals Astron. Obs. Harvard, 11, part 2, p. 291), the identification may be wrong. -- Harlock81 ( talk) 08:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Just pick a Pickering and you'll be fine. Neither will be picky about it.
69.171.160.247 ( talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about Vesta's northern polar region in this animation. Is the flattening here real or just not included because that part has not been mapped (yet)? Hubble images do not show such flattening. -- JorisvS ( talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the animation just cuts off. Per P.C., Dawn's mission is being timed to enable full coverage of the north pole. The original schedule would have had Dawn leaving prior to that. — kwami ( talk) 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Vesta and some other asteroids.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
Vesta has been recently determined to be a dwarf planet, not an asteroid. -- 76.180.168.219 ( talk) 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw on one of the science channels today that the lead scientist studying Vesta for NASA (as well as a number of his research team members) now believe that Vesta meets the requirements to be classified as a "dwarf planet". Yet I have also seen it listed in many places as an asteroid.
It seems that if there is credible mainstream scientific discussion about listing Vesta as a dwarf planet that this deserves a section in the article. Not a section that says that Vesta is one, but that reassigning it's status is being recommended by key researchers in the scientific mainstream. Such a debate is worthy of an article mention, although I doubt the issue will be settled for some time. The same science report today did quote other scientists who do not agree that Vesta is a dwarf planet, but believe instead that it is a "proto-planet" (stillborn embryonic planet, so to speak). 64.134.152.48 ( talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I am totally not competent to add to this article, but the newly-published data from Dawn presented at EGU (article here [7] and LOADS of info here [8]) seem to have a lot of additional facts that might improve the article. Kevin/Last1in ( talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Its now classified as a protoplanet. Someone should update this. mentioned in this article: http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/10/space-rock-vesta-promoted-to-protoplanet/?hpt=hp_c2. I dont think this should be classified as a GA until this is fixed. Arowhun ( talk) 20:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Moving here:
We should be able to update this from Dawn. Also, 'east' and 'west' have the opposite meanings for Hubble and the Dawn team (off by 155°), so the terms are ambiguous. — kwami ( talk) 09:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The 2010-2011 section in "Visibility" seems irrelevant to me. Should it be deleted? VirtualDave 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualDave ( talk • contribs)
For its current rotation rate Vesta's equilibrium figure would have an oblateness of 0.128. Its actual oblateness is 0.21. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/2115.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.245.205 ( talk) 17:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Agmartin ( talk) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Dawn at Vesta: testing the protoplanetary paradigm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6082/684 states in note 19 "Vesta’s shape and the values of J2, C22, and S22 (C22,0.0043590 T 0.0000003; S22, 0.000254 T 0.000005) indicate that Vesta is not currently in hydrostatic equilibrium," (search for title on http://scholar.google.com/ if unable to view sciencemag articles), also discussed by the authors in THE GRAVITY FIELD OF VESTA AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERIOR STRUCTURE http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2012/pdf/2600.pdf Agmartin ( talk) 17:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
How much does Vesta deviate from a triaxial ellipsoid when ignoring the Rheasilvia basin? -- JorisvS ( talk) 14:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
To me it looks like there are several large, degraded craters on Vesta beside Rheasilivia/Veneneia. Is that what Feralia Planitia is? — kwami ( talk) 21:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
維斯塔 wéisītǎ, with an obscure ī, is the closest Chinese approximation of the Latin pronunciation westa.
"Obscure i" is not a correct linguistic term--can we give IPA here, or a proper description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.7.34 ( talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the wikilink on Claudia crater in a photo caption, because it adds nothing useful. Nobody is going to write an article about a tiny crater which has the sole distinction of being used for the zero meridian on Vesta. That crater has no other distinguishing characteristics that would justify an article, so restoring the wikilink will leave this permanently redlinked. Is there any point to doing that?
WP:WTAF was written specifically for lists, but it applies in general articles as well, as a variation of WP:OVERLINK. No need to create links that just make the text harder to read. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 17:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states that the equatorial rotation velocity of Vesta is 257.5 m/s. This however is the orbital velocity of a Low Vesta Orbit. Using the other numbers, 572.6 km for equatorial diameter and 5.342 h for rotational period I get an equatorial rotation velocity of 93.54 m/s. Should I replace the value? The 257.5 m/s number is not from an external source anyway. 46.230.130.173 ( talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 4 Vesta. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/returnprepeph.cgi?d=b2011&o=00004When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 4 Vesta. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know how close Vesta can get to Ceres since they can meet if you look on their orbits from "above". 212.186.0.174 ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)