Talk:J002E3

message: Are there any images that better compliment the article than this one? it seems rather roundabout.
:When I wrote the article I looked for some GFDL or PD images but couldn't find any. This image nicely illustrates though what J002E3 is (apart from the SLA panels) and also showcases what I think is a nice image. If anyone out there knows of any GFDL or PD images feel free the add them. Evil Monkey → Talk  03:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
::FWIW, NIX only has one image of the S-IVB stage after launch, AS12-50-7328. It's not any good for this. Shimgray | talk | 00:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image is fine. The SLA panels did not stay attached to the stage. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Should this article not be called S-IVB-507?  Sine we figured out what it is, the name J002E3 is a bit of a distraction.  The S-IVB-507 article could talk about the part's manufacture, testing, and flight as well as its re-discovery as J002E3.  It would also be more appropriate then to include pictures of S-IVB-507 from a time when it was much closer to the camera.  -- ke4roh (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd pass on the rename.  The article discusses the object as discovered floating through space, and the reason that the engine is notable is specifically because it is space debris sighted during astronomical observations.  Thus it seems most suited that the article use the title when rediscovered.  That the other title is a redirect seems an acceptable solution.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it called "J002E3"? For a supposed natural satellite of the Earth, "S/2002 E 3" would have seemed more logical. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Answering for myself, almost six years later.) It must be a temporary internal designation; once this was known to almost certainly be artificial, it would surely not have gotten an official temporary designation (and what would be the first and second satellites of Earth found in 2002, then?). Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I added the reimpact risk edit because I'm genuinely curious about the risk if/when this object impacts earth. I'd presume that it'd be roughly the same as lofting a 10 tonne object 60km or so and then dropping it. That is, I'd guess it would be substantial, but smaller than nuclear or even conventional weapons, but smaller than a regular 10 tonne meteor impact from another trajectory. If someone with better knowledge could set my mind at rest about a 10 tonne meteor we might have hurled at ourselves.... Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.199.245.37 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: an object of that mass would just burn up in the atmosphere. It's not very big anyway. 86.180.14.20 (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reimpact risk edit 

message: The article says "Further examination revealed that the surface appeared to contain the paint ..."   -- im tempted to insert a request for citation -- do anybody know how that was done? Sorenriise (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of paint? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J002E3. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324104952/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/20sep_mysteryobject.htm to https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/20sep_mysteryobject.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Since the S-IVB stage is an (artificial) quasi-moon of Earth, can't we figure out its Earth MOID, that is, how close to Earth it may come during its current orbit? And it will come close to Earth in the 2040s again, so there should be some estimate how close it would come just like Apophis' perigee is predicted quite precisely now. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth MOID