Talk:2009 Jupiter impact event

Size of impactor

When fragment G (~1km in diameter) from Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter in 1994, it caused a similar sized scar. Wesley pic

How could an astronomical object that is only one kilometer in diameter cause the formation of a black spot on Jupiter that is the size of the Pacific Ocean? Keraunos (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)]

When it vaporized in Jupiter's atmosphere, it exploded and blasted dust over a wide area. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily actually. When a 1km asteroid/comet impacts it explodes like a large atomic bomb below the upper atmosphere sending ejecta from below into the upper atmosphere. What you are seeing is a scar (mushroom cloud) suspended in Jupiter's atmophere. Within a week or so this feature will dilute to the point you can not see it. Jupiter is 11.2x larger in diameter than the Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly title

Just because radio and TV ad writers have started adding the word "event" to describe events in order to make them sound more important doesn't mean Wikipedians should be imitating this illiterate example. "Event" is a generic word properly used to refer to something that happened without defining it, usually in material where the event is already known from the context. It's a type of shorthand for referring to something with a longer title and just calling it "the event."

An impact qualifies as an event. But all that it needs to be called is an impact. There is no clarity gained from calling something event, it's just a stuffy way of putting "Oh, wow" into the title. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a silly title. The word "event" is not sensationalism. See the article impact event; this is the usual astronomical term for this sort of thing. —Lowellian (reply) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If the spot had suddenly appeared and we had reason to think it wasn't an impact (so the cause was unknown), we'd call this "Jupiter 2009 event." I'll go ahead and move the page. YLee (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, impact event seems to be an accepted astronomy term, so there is some clarity gained by calling it what it is: an "impact event". The term is used by several of the references (including one from Cal Berkeley and one from JPL). It does not appear to be a terminology started by "radio and TV ad writers". Second, "Jupiter 2009 impact" is too cryptic, and the order feels disjointed (it would make as much sense to say "Impact 2009 Jupiter"). Since impact event appears to have a specific astronomic meaning that describes what happened here, I suggest using that term, and expanding to a clearer article title, so that someone not already familiar with the impact will know what the article is about. Maybe July 2009 Jupiter impact event, or Jupiter impact event of July 2009, or something similar. Rather than continue to bounce the article title around, I'm asking if anyone objects if I move it to one of those, or if they've got a better name in mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was only after I made the move that I remembered that impact event really is the proper term, in this case, so I'm open to moving it back.

Regarding the precise wording of the title, I favor "Jupiter impact event, 2009"; this way future such events can be called "Jupiter impact event, 2015" and their titles will all be sorted properly. Look at how articles on elections are named, for example. I don't favor using the month in the title; if there's another impact event later this year we can rename this article as needed. YLee (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we wait to move it for a bit? I'd like to avoid all the name bouncing around that's been going on, and see if someone else has a comment first.sorry, misread your comment, I thought you meant you were going to do it right away. For example, if you don't like "July", I'd prefer 2009 Jupiter impact event. The comma and year at the end still seem odd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple predecents we can follow. I already mentioned elections; look at United States presidential election, 1952 and United Kingdom general election, 1997. Another is earthquakes, such as 1983 Coalinga earthquake or 1983 Borah Peak earthquake. I still favor the election precedent. Earthquakes are named after their epicenters, and the odds of two earthquakes sharing the exact same epicenter are very, very low. On the other hand, it's entirely possible — even likely — that as instruments improve we'll identify more and more impact events in the future. If we're going to eventually need Jupiter impact event, 2015, Jupiter impact event, May 2019, and Jupiter impact event, October 2019 (as per United Kingdom general election, February 1974 and United Kingdom general election, October 1974), the election precedent makes the most sense. YLee (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Using astronomy-related precedents would be better, except that they're not really cut and dried either; for example, I learned an hour ago that solar eclipse articles follow Solar eclipse of Month Date, Year, but lunar eclipse articles follow Month Year lunar eclipse. If I thought it wouldn't get bogged down, perhaps a general discussion at WT:AST might be a good place to try to get broad consensus for a single astronomy-wide format? In any case, as long as "impact event" is in there, I'm willing to settle for your suggestion if you feel strongly, I just think one of the other two formats scans better. What do you think, would a trip to WT:AST for a bigger discussion be worthwhile? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and post a message to WT:AST, pointing people to our discussion. YLee (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WT:AST#Article title date formats, and mentioned this discussion, but I think it makes more sense to have the rest of the conversation about date formats there. If someone still dislikes impact event in the title, it makes sense to continue that conversation here, IMHO. See you over there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I support "impact event" in the title. —Lowellian (reply) 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, SpaceFlight89 comes in without bothering to join in (or read, for all we know) the discussion and summarily moves the article. Not that I'm not also guilty of summarily moving in this case, but it'd have been nice to achieve consensus of some sort first. YLee (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, but no real long term harm done; likely he didn't know it was even being discussed. WP:AST is pretty dead so far, chime in if you have an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kheider's edits

Since I've already used up two reverts, I want to clarify here why I object to Kheider's recent edits. His current edit states

Detecting satellites less than 10 km in diameter orbiting Jupiter is difficult and requires some of the best telescopes in world. It is only since 1999 with the discovery of Callirrhoe that astronomers have been able to discover many of Jupiter's smallest moons.

In an earlier version of the above, I had changed his "moons" to "small objects"; he then changed "small object" to "satellite", complete with a warning to me to not dare change his words again. He doesn't realize that I made my original change in order to strengthen the connection between his edit and the article. As it stands, the article currently goes from a discussion of the impacter (whatever it was) to the specific difficulty of identifying very small Jovian moons, with nothing to connect the two. Changing "satellites" to "small objects" or "moons and other small objects" would help here. We should also change "orbiting" to "near" or "around"; we simply don't know whether the impacter was ever in orbit around Jupiter, and saying otherwise is clearly original research. YLee (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As you said we don't know what the object was. It could have been a comet (if so likely dormant), an asteroid, or a satellite. As you stated it could have even been a alien spaceship. I realize why you made some of the changes, but you were not acting in good faith with the reference. You assume that any 10km object orbiting Jupiter would be difficult to see. I suspect an active 10km comet would be very easy to see. Keep in mind "temporary satellite capture (TSC)" is common. *Where* do I state that the impacter was a satellite? -- Kheider (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, let's please keep accusations of "not acting in good faith" off the table. This isn't WP:ANI, we can talk calmly and rationally here, right? I've talked with Ylee all of 15 minutes, and I can assure you he's editing in good faith. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that a 10km active comet and its tail would likely be very easy to see, but don't you see that saying so without a cite in the midst of discussing why the object wasn't identified before the impact is a classic example of original research? The current wording, by abrubtly shifting from a discussion of the impacter to the difficulty of finding small moons "orbiting" Jupiter, clearly implies that the impacter was in orbit around Jupiter before colliding with it. (Heck, I'd say your wording implies that the impacter was an actual Jovian moon.) I'm trying to do you a favor and (as with your earlier arguably-OR insert about the object's size) make your edit fit into the article while keeping with the no-OR dictate. YLee (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the transition sentence. I will change the unencyclopedic tense, but otherwise I am fine with the edit. YLee (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you Ylee, your wording is better. Sorry for the bumpy ride. I know I am walking a fine line on the Orig-Research. But as a member of the local astronomy club, I have heard some really weird assumptions. -- Kheider (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting, but have to leave. Quickly before I go, do any of the references speculate on the size of the object? At least one says clearly it cannot be known yet, I don't have time to re-read the others. If no reference gives a size range, I really feel that comparing the size to SL9 is original research and should be removed, even if interesting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is that by not stating any size, there are people out there that think a planet came out of nowhere and hit Jupiter. I am hoping for a better reference from NASA soon. But I think we should state something until then. -- 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We can mention SL9's size (two km or less, according to both the Wikipedia article and some papers I looked up) and/or the likely size of the impacters, While saying that because SL9 was this big, the July 2009 object must be that big would be OR, we can make an objective statement mentioning the size of the only other such impacter and have readers draw their own conclusions. I'll go ahead and make the change myself. YLee (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; Kheider's change to "it is possible" softens the language sufficiently for me. A cited, explicit, *brief* mention of SL9's impacters' sizes would still be nice to have, though. YLee (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent edits to this section make it a pretty useful, well-referenced addition. Good job. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Callirrhoe

This probably does not need to be in the article, but I thought I would mention it here:
Callirrhoe (small ~8km satellite of Jupiter) has an apparent magnitude of 20.7, making it even fainter than dwarf planet Eris at magnitude 18.7. (Just trying to give some perspective.) -- Kheider (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

title

The lead is calling this event the "Wesley impact" but the title says "2009 Jupiter impact event" - so which is it? The two should match, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find any uses of "Wesley impact" in any source other than some amateur-astronomy blogs. Unless we can get some reputable sources using the name we should delete it, certainly from the lede. YLee (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter impact is far better. The general public would not know it as the Wesley impact... -- Kheider (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think 2010 Jupiter impact event should be merged into 2009 Jupiter impact event due to their similar nature, and the fact that the important text in the 2010 article is only about a paragraph long. Thoughts? -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Was the 2010 Jupiter impact event in itself a notable event? If no, then I agree that the two should be merged; otherwise, I suggest they can be kept separate. Given the number of reliable independent sources cited in the article, I think the answer is it is notable and therefore I think should be kept separate. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Jupiter impact event. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jupiter.samba.org/jupiter-impact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720180242/http://keckobservatory.org/index.php/news/jupiters_adds_a_feature/ to http://keckobservatory.org/index.php/news/jupiters_adds_a_feature/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-th.bo.infn.it/tunguska/Asteroids-Chapter-18.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lasp.colorado.edu/~espoclass/homework/5830_2008_homework/Zahnle2003CrateringRates.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Keck image of Jupiter impact.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)