Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9

message: I see some of the ",000 km" have been turned into Mm.
Does anyone use the megametre in practice?  MKS (meter-kilogram-second as referenced in the article International System of Units) astronomers tend to use "×106 m" (or, for CGS, "×108 cm"); others generally use "thousand km", in my experience. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It now says "temperatures 10 K (−263.1 °C; −441.7 °F) higher than the surroundings", which is wrong - a temperature of 10K is a temperature of −263.1 °C or −441.7 °F), but that does not work for temperature difference, where 10K is about 10°C or 18°F. Indeed, the concept of a temperature difference of −441.7 °F makes little sense. I don't know enough about complex Wikipedia things to be able to change it. 62.3.68.174 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: I think ,000km is more immediately comprehendible to the general public, and astronomers too - the refs pretty much universally use ,000 km in this context.  Therefore, I've switched it back.
Also, the term perizene is not ever used by astronomers.  Much used here on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia:Google test, but in astronomy you can also use the ADS test (ADS is the astrophysics data service, and has an extremely advanced search engine which covers references back to the 1850s), which in this case gives perijove an impressive 17,882-0 victory over perizene in the number of occurrences in the literature.  So, I've changed that back as well. Worldtraveller 18:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it's not quite such an emphatic win for perijove - I had the synonym replacement turned on so it was searching for Jupiter, Jovian etc as well as perijove - it's actually 41-0. Worldtraveller 19:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - I was happy to read the apsis page, and see the "correct" term perizene, but from a google test it seem that no-one uses it apart from WP and its mirrors. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and terms

message: One thing I hope someone could clarify... the "Impact" section says that the comet impacted Jupiter on the side hidden from earth, but that Galileo was able to observe this even though it was on it's way to Jupiter. Wouldn't that mean Galileo would also be unable to see it? Could someone clarify this, either here or on the main page, as to the path of Galileo that allowed it to see the impacts?
:The Galileo spacecraft had an interesting journey to Jupiter, with gravitational slingshots past Earth twice and Venus once - essentially it approached Jupiter from the side.  In any event, approaching direct from Earth would be difficult, due to the spacecraft's angular momentum. See this illustration -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification on Impact

message: The picture with the caption "A sequence of Hubble Space Telescope images showing the appearance of the fireball of the largest impact, that of fragment G" was in fact not taken by the Hubble.  I believe it was taken by the galileo.  A picture of Jupiter showing a partial phase like that could never be taken from Earth, or Earth orbit.
:Good spot.  Changed.  I also I think it was W rather than G - see this and  this... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: picture mislabelled

message: As I do not have much time now and I do not know where to put this trivia bit, I ask the community: On the Wild Mood Swings album (1996) The Cure had a song called 'Jupiter Crash', which commented on the crash ('Was that it?' / 'Was that the Jupiter show?' / 'It wasn't quite what I'd hoped for you know'), which is used to comment on an unsuccessful love affair. Maybe someone can add a trivia section and check the exact text? Thanks!
Zement 08:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cure

message: - "Radio observations revealed a sharp increase in continuum emission at a wavelength of 21 cm after the largest impacts ..." -
"continuum" links to a disambiguation page, and none of the referral pages there seems to be relevant. Can anyone clarify this? -- 15 NOV 2005
:I've linked continuum to Black body (radiation) as the best match I can find. -Wikibob 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuum?

message: I've changed this claim:
rate of cometary impacts on Jupiter is thought to be between two and ten times higher than the rate on Earth [15]
because it was contradicted by the source it cites:
for Jupiter-interacting comets of greater than 1 km diameter, a Jupiter impact takes place every 500-1000 yr, and an Earth impact every 2-4 Myr.
Now every 500 to 1000 years is a rate 2 to 8 thousand times higher than the rate on Earth.
Even so, out of curiosity, is a two thousand times impact rate lower or higher than would be expected from Jupiter's greater mass and capture cross-section? It orbits at 13 km/sec, compared to Earth's 29 km/sec, has 121 Earth's area, so ignoring gravity it looks like Jupiter should sweep up 55 times more objects. I've no idea how to estimate the gravity effects, but suspect that the cited rate is somehow greater than would be expected. -Wikianon 13:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rate of cometary impacts? 

message: I know someone is going to say, "go edit yourself".  The bottom line is that I don't have sufficient time to do it well right now.  However, there are quite a few small errors in the article.  For example, the best models put the progenitor comet at 2 km, and the largest pieces at 0.5 km.  The waves predicted included both seismic (compressional) and gravity (buoyancy) waves.  The observed waves were likely the latter, as the former go much faster and have a non-constant speed (or rather the speed of their intersection with the visible surface is non-constant).  Shocks were also observed.  I wrote a review article for this event in 2004, and am one of the few investigators still working on it.  You can get the review article here: http://physics.ucf.edu/~jh/ast/papers/Ch8_indexed.pdf
Changes between this and the final proof were minor.  That's not a permanent URL, so please don't link to it.  The publication reference is:
Harrington, J., I. de Pater, S. H. Brecht, D. Deming, V. S. Meadows, K. Zahnle, and P. D. Nicholson 2004.
Lessons from Shoemaker-Levy 9 about Jupiter and planetary impacts. In F. Bagenal, T. E. Dowling,
and W. McKinnon (Eds.), Jupiter: Planet, Satellites & Magnetosphere, pp. 159-­184. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
--jh--
Joeharr4 04:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources and details 

message: Is there any scientific speculation on the impact to Earth had Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit us instead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.86.197 (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An old question, but the short answer is "catastrophic."  A greater than 2-kilometer wide body hitting the planet at 37 miles/sec???                         "We believe it was a comet or asteroid measuring perhaps a few hundred meters wide," says Don Yeomans of NASA's Near-Earth Object Office at JPL. "If something of similar size hit Earth—we're talking about 2000 megatons of energy--there would be serious regional devastation or a tsunami if it hit the ocean."  Please note that other astronomers estimated that pieces of SL-9 were in the 2 kilometer range. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoemaker-Levy 9 Impacting Earth instead? 

message: I've made a series of small changes to the lead in an attempt to improve how it scans and remove redundancy.  One edit removes the words "described as" thus changing an opinion to a fact.  If it's an opinon, it was lazy wording anyway and needs attribution anyway, but I want to ensure I don't accidentally label opinion as truth. 0_obrenneman 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a somewhat awkward way of saying that while they were somewhat smaller than the Spot they had far greater color contrast.  "more easily visible" seems rather subjective in this case.  How should the spots in the picture on the left be described? --Noren (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 July 2008 changes to lead 

message: From the lead section: "The collision provided new information about Jupiter and highlighted its role in reducing space debris in the inner solar system." However the "space debris" article explicitly refers only to man-made objects. Axl (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Space debris"? 

message: The third paragraph states that SL9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit in July 1992, and goes on to state that the fragments collided in July 1994.
Given that the second paragraph says it was discovered in 1993, I think the '92 date may be an error. Don't know though, and not sure how to research it. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself can look into this. MichaelCaricofe (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct.  The comet was discovered after it had split. -- Kheider (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992? 1994? 

message: The text includes "the planet's Roche limit, inside which tidal forces are strong enough to disrupt a body held together only by gravity.".
That could be misleading.
The Roche distance is not a property of the planet alone; it depends on the ratio of the densities of the planet and the body.  See the Roche limit article, etc. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roche 

message: Surely a "comet orbiting Jupiter" would be more correctly known as a MOON of Jupiter? 94.194.66.92 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The proper term is "temporary satellite capture (TSC)". -- Kheider (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it a MOON? 

message: In the grand tradition of the magazine Nature, astonishingly inaccurate predictions were published, while prescient ones were ignored. Bill Bryson tells the story in a "A Short History of Nearly Everything." An article was published entitled "The Big Fizzle Is Coming," which is available here. 
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/news9.html
The author confidently predicts an estimate that is more than 600 times less than what actually occurred. I don't feel like editing the section but maybe someone else does, as well adding to the "Criticisms" section of the Nature article if there is such a section.
Here is the relevant quote from Short History: "One week before the impact, Nature ran an article, "The Big Fizzle is Coming," predicting that the impact would constitute nothing more than a meteor shower....One fragment, known as Nucleus G, struck with the force of about six million megatons." The math is my own, but note that this is one fragment out of 21, so the magnitude of wrongness is far greater. [Bryson, Page 202, Random House, 2003.]  
Allow me to further note that "cautious" is not a descriptor that can be applied to adjectives and phrases such as "thus," "will be," and "far less... than some have predicted." So much for the universally applied label "prestigious" to Nature, which frequently rejects methodical papers that don't comport with religiously held orthodox views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.253.227 (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions 

message: Since this affects multiple pages, I have moved this to the manual of style.Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#comet_names Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_125#comet_names. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request move 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose; we follow our own style guide for punctuation and do not blindly follow "official" formatting.  Powers T 17:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is that it is not a spelling error, but a stylistic variant. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and you have failed to persuade anyone. Continuing here what you have failed to achieve elsewhere is what's disruptive. — kwami (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: In the Discovery section, it says: "...comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 was an unusual comet, as it appeared to show multiple nuclei in an elongated region about 50 arcseconds long and 10 arcseconds wide." It goes on to say that "the comet lay only about 4 degrees from Jupiter as seen from Earth." Why is it using angular measurement units for distance? Ethg242 (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angular Measurements? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. 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/20080509145539/http://cometography.com/pcomets/1993f2.html to http://cometography.com/pcomets/1993f2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020603124548/http://www.seds.org/sl9/sl9.html to http://www.seds.org/sl9/sl9.html
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) 02:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6EhPOvoer?url=http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/sl9/cometfaq.html to http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/sl9/cometfaq.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EhPOvoer?url=http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/sl9/cometfaq.html to http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/sl9/cometfaq.html
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) 06:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9. 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/20151124095115/http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/astronomy/planetary-science/collision-comet-shoemaker-levy-9-and-jupiter-iau-colloquium-156 to http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/astronomy/planetary-science/collision-comet-shoemaker-levy-9-and-jupiter-iau-colloquium-156
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) 21:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At one time there was material present in the article on the different ways astronomers were going to observe the event, including using probes such as Galileo and one of the Voyagers. Why was this material removed?  Sephiroth9611 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it.  I can't read. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of methods of observation 

message: The hatnote says
:"Shoemaker–Levy" redirects here. For other Shoemaker–Levy comets, see List of periodic comets.
However, that list has very little on Shomeaker-Levy comets. I'm not sure how to amend this.--Nø (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote re Shoemaker-Levy 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I curated List of landing ellipses on extraterrestrial bodies a few days ago, and I've been plowing through IAUC notices tonight trying to find the best prediction of the impact zones. As near as I can figure, it was known that they would be beyond the planet's limb (and that its rotation would bring them into terran view within minutes), but is there a citation as to which quadrant, hemisphere, band, zone, or whatever? Thx.
kencf0618 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicted Footprint/Ellipses?