924:
chuckle at what youâve written (which I assume was your intention), from bus drivers to social workers and also from the âwoo wooâsâ as you have so eloquently termed them! In fact, youâve used statements like woo-woo in reference to other articles as well. The âwoo wooâsâ are not likely to be impressed with âdeceptiveâ links and insulting references, and given that anyone can edit content, they are quite likely to simply edit this article to their own agenda... and sadly you canât stop them doing so
Kheider! Take a look at the edit war behind the moon landing conspiracy article as an example. You may find yourself stuck in an edit war defending what you have written. If as you say you have over 11,000 edits to your name, a quick look at your profile and that edit war may extend to a large number of other articles that you have contributed to and which you will have to defend and monitor because a small number of people edit/hack/deface/vandalise them just for fun because they felt that you were being insulting. If the articles arenât your own work, then other users will also suffer as a result. All of your good work to date could end up wasted if youâre not careful Kevin. I feel that the constant edit warring and defending content on wikipedia, is one of the main reasons that so many seasoned editors are leaving Knowledge these days so we need to work with and support each other to avoid it if we can.
856:
around NPV, I'm sure that you've read it, and the statement, especially the discrepancy in the links and where those links actually go to, belittles the otherwise good work that has been done on the article. The result of the statement as it stands, is to have a good article, but when the reader gets to the bottom of it, you lose all credibility from a blatant expression of near vitriolic bias! Not only that, but no serious readers will look at any other article that you've written because they'll expect the same injection of bias there as well. That would be a shame, since you've obviously done some really good work on this subject area. Just my thoughts...
156:
956:
difference between a potential edit war based on semantics and outright intentional vandalism. If people did not repeatedly make-up stories on the internet about the biggest and brightest near-Earth asteroids, referenced statements to previous failed doomsday predictions of the same object would not be necessary. I think it is important that younger readers are informed that there were false claims made in 2004. Sadly, history has a tendency to repeat itself. --
917:
Also, the purpose of the citation is to validate your statement about the âdoomsaying fear mongerers...â which Davidâs article doesnât actually do (apart from a brief mention of âthe craziesâ â I only skimmed it briefly though). In fact, youâre possibly mis representing him by using it in that context. You (and he) may well hold a particular opinion (which is your right), but an encyclopaedic article is perhaps not the place for them.
84:
53:
180:
22:
94:
1059:
1258:, looking for information about 1989 AC. The article gave me a lot of information, for which I am grateful. However, the two alternative names are simply listed. It would be nice to have a small section explaining all three names. Other Wik. articles have etymological sections or discussions of the naming history (e.g.,
730:
1158:
I appreciate the reply, but I'd like to find somebody who knows how to read
Chinese and/or can determine if it may be possible to use this image with a free content license? Fair use claims are fine in extreme circumstances, but this is not really illustrating anything beyond what we already got, as
855:
So... are you implying
Kheider that having only one edit makes my statement inferior in some way? :-) I created an account yesterday because the statement about "fear-mongering doomsday crowd" is not just biassed but quite frankly insulting to some, and so should be addressed. Knowledge has a policy
564:
Ok, fair enough, I don't mind being overruled. But you guys are all thinking of the near-circular planetary orbits whose properties are dominated by the Sun's gravity, and are only slightly perturbed by other bodies; or of moon orbits that are dominated by their planets' gravity. But smaller bodies
549:
I was about to remove that odd comment myself and place it here, but it seems someone did it between my reading it and the person posting this. I also removed the, "but this analogy breaks down due to the somewhat unpredicable laws of gravity" comment too. Gravity isn't unpredictable. Orbits can be
568:
Please don't take the term "chaotic" to be an indictment of the laws of nature. It simply refers to the fact that any error or uncertainty in a model grows exponentially with time until the model loses all predictive ability. My remarks in this vane were motivated by the fact that this asteroid's
1127:
website, but I don't really know how to read
Chinese all that well and can't determine the copyright status of these images. If there is an image taken by the Chinese Space Agency that is compatible with Commons licensing terms, it would be appreciated if somebody could help dig it up. Generally
923:
Thirdly, and most importantly, I think you have a much more important issue to ponder here
Kheider... Come November/December this year, the Toutatis article will no doubt attract a large amount of attention as the asteroid approaches earth, from scientists and astronomers who will no doubt have a
916:
Secondly, Davidâs article is not ideal as a citation, since it begins in the first paragraph by talking about âthe craziesâ. Now, one can accept that statement, given that he was talking to a specific audience, but your article is talking to a much wider audience and is an encyclopaedic article.
604:
If you take the number of days between the last orbital crossing of 4179 Toutatis and the next one which will occur in 2008, it amounts to 1502 or 1503 days +/- 12 hours. If you calculate the next time it will pass Earth's orbit based on that number of days alone (obviously not 100% accurate but
955:
without fully reading it. Some how, I am not too surprised. Load the reference and do a text search for "doom", "rumor", "The Big One", "impact winter" or even the harsher term "zealot". The "anonymity of the
Internet" (as you call it) allows anyone to say anything they want. There is a big
274:
That "minimum distance" thingy presumably means that if you consider the two orbital ellipses, they are 0.006 AU apart at their closest point. The reason it will be 0.0104 AU away on this pass is that Earth is arriving at the closest point ahead of the asteroid (or vice versa).
1555:
789:
Have to agree with the "fear-mongering doomsday crowd" statement... it's incredibly opinionated and detracts from an otherwise credible article. Let's lose it please. It, and the citation, make the scientific community come across as quite superior and aloof.
288:
The asteroid passes within four lunar distances of the Earth on
September 29, 2004. The asteroid is the largest known that has ever passed this close to Earth. Are we getting more out of synch every four years (I hope). Or is this the "doomsday asteroid"?
927:
Itâs up to you what you do with the reference really... If it was me, I would simply remove the whole statement, and the citation, because itâs the safest thing to do in a highly trafficked article. Alternatively, you could change it to something like;
818:
It is interesting to note that both of you have only contributed 1 edit to
Knowledge. I have changed the wording to hopefully make it come across as less harsh. But I see no reason to completely remove a true statement from a reliable source. --
935:
As for me, Iâm going to end by diatribe and get back to my life now, but Iâll put a flag in my calendar to pull up your profile in
December and see how youâre tracking... All the best, and keep up the good work, it adds great value to
1003:
at a distance of 0.046AU. Thank you for the heads-up for a reminder/update. Give the concern some of the public has about NEOs, it is good to mention in the article that
Toutatis has been under observation since May of this year. --
605:
close), you end up with a date of ~ December 21, 2012 +/- 12 hours. Two of the three most likely end dates of the "Long Count" for the Mayan calendar are December 21, 2012 and December 23, 2012 according to this website
839:
the worse promoters of doomsday crowd probably have earned that comment. What changes are you suggesting? Keep in mind that many woo-woos are predicting the end of the world as we know it around December 21, 2012. --
404:'s positioning of the image (upper left) was pretty good, but I have changed it again. I have put the image at the upper right, and moved the Minor Planet box down. If anyone has a better idea, go for it. --
1143:
You can upload it here at English Knowledge, under a fair use claim, while determining whether it needs to be or not. Since the Change2 images are not replaceable, we should be able to use it as fair use --
767:
Not particularly fond of the "fear-mongering conspiracy crowd" myself, but doesn't that wording detract somewhat from the objectivity of this article? Wanted to see what others thought before changing it.
932:
and then find an appropriate article to use as validation. If youâre clever, you can even link to a nice bland pro Armageddon article, even an offline one, and maybe stave off any edit wars that way.
1173:
Not really, since there are no direct imaging photos of identifiable landscape from anything other than Change2. Others are computer simulations, artist's impressions, and radar images. --
519:
189:
67:
431:
Please clarify how the laws of gravity, the ones that let us put spaceships into orbit around planets, are chaotic and unpredictable. The equation is something simple, like Îx/r.
976:
The past dates and months are still in future tense. (e.g. object will make another close approach on July of 2012) Shouldn't those be fixed and updated with up-to date sources? "
1545:
435:
Sorry, that would be something like GmM/r where m and M are the respective masses of the interacting gravitational objects and G is another famous constant. Where is the chaos?
543:
Thanks, Mack. I was just browsing and noticed a scientific article that began to sound "new age" and wondered how chaos theory intersected with Newtonian physics. -Dave
146:
1575:
259:. The approach on September 29, 2004 will be particularly close, at 0.0104 AU (within 4 lunar distances) from Earth, presenting a good opportunity for observation.
1550:
1473:
1469:
1455:
1363:
1359:
1345:
592:, Toutatis' orbit would be 1518 x 1173 m, and earth's would be 602 m. The miss distance this time would be 3.13 m, and minimum miss distance would be 1.80 m. --
1565:
194:
297:
I think the distance of closest approach varies, but in the current orbit, it never gets closer than two moon distances. However, orbits can be perturbed. --
883:. But thank you for the compliment, "you've obviously done some really good work on this subject area". *If* you can suggest a better wording to address the
1540:
165:
136:
63:
263:
What does 'minimum distance at present of 0.006 AU' mean? That's just above two lunar distances; does that mean that's the closest it's ever gotten? --
930:âAs with other Near Earth Objects, a small number of people fear that the approach of Toutanis in December 2012 carries ill omen for the planetâ
1560:
876:
1263:
525:, which has some things in common with three-body gravitational motion. Here are some external links if you are interested to learn more:
1535:
1209:
1174:
1145:
775:
1235:
872:
806:
749:
704:
660:
1451:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1441:
1311:
1187:
I have to agree with the anon, an actual photograph is different from noisy radar images or a computer model. It is added value. --
725:
The article doesn't say what the composition of the asteroid is, however the surface has been studied spectrographically. "average
1570:
892:
446:
13:48, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)) Chaos can arise from extremely simple formulae, as it does in this case. The classic example is the
107:
58:
920:
Still, if you canât find a better citation to validate your point, then itâs your call whether to use Davidâs article or not.
1035:
discuss the chinese contribution. It's a good article for about 2 years ago, but I have to say it totally feels outdated. --
1079:
1027:
The chinese just did a close flyby and got some wonderful hi res pics, this article should reference the public pics and
1516:
1406:
1094:
33:
1232:
seeing as that page mentions this asteroid? Saariaho (a composer) wrote an addition to Holst's "The Planets" about it.
880:
589:
1075:
999:
as seen from Toutatis occurred on 27 July 2012 when Toutatis was 0.66AU from Earth. The notable close approach is
1472:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1362:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
425:
Note: I didn't make these myself, but they sound valid and they shouldn't have been on the article page itself.
1267:
1164:
1133:
682:
1213:
779:
1507:
1433:
1397:
1293:
1239:
1178:
1149:
941:
861:
802:
453:
1083:
753:
708:
664:
1301:
1491:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1479:
1381:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1369:
616:
although this next one allows you to specify whether the inclusion of the end date is calculated or not
39:
1432:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1292:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
937:
857:
798:
623:
555:
322:
I find it very amusing that this asteroid would be named Toutatis... the one thing the strip character
255:
Toutatis makes close approaches to Earth every four years, with a minimum distance at present of just
1336:
794:
771:
356:
334:
233:
21:
1160:
1129:
871:
TomTerrahawk, you seem to assume quite a bit about me for someone new to Knowledge. Since you have
237:
170:
1036:
528:
353:
331:
1442:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090129204315/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast31oct_1.htm
1312:
http://www.webcitation.org/5gOzK38bc?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchemistry.unina.it%2F%7Ealvitagl%2Fsolex%2F
1208:
There is nothing in the Chinese text on that particular page mentioning copyright of the image. (
1128:
China is not really paranoid about copyright issues, but it can be a minefield none the less. --
232:
I think it qualifies under both categories, but I'm not an expert. Perhaps you could try asking
225:
1476:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1366:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
551:
1492:
1382:
1124:
155:
1192:
1040:
1009:
961:
900:
884:
845:
824:
694:
686:
641:
387:
1109:
585:
If we're going to be more accurate about the racetrack sizes, they would be more like this:
99:
1499:
1389:
1000:
888:
836:
522:
221:
217:
1445:
573:. However, if you guys find that to be misleading, then I'm glad they were removed. --
224:. Is there crossover between these groups, or is this an indication of a contradiction?
1458:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1348:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
678:
657:
606:
426:
371:
1498:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1388:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1529:
1425:
1285:
996:
977:
952:
565:
that wend their way among the planets are much less predictable over the long term.
550:
perturbed (and I left that in the article) but they're otherwise very predictable.--
1188:
1005:
957:
896:
841:
820:
733:
690:
637:
593:
574:
447:
443:
405:
383:
298:
276:
1556:
Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
1465:
1355:
1105:
741:
617:
413:
401:
309:
290:
264:
674:
659:. is this an error? or has the orbit been perturbed since that observation? --
450:, which exhibits chaotic behaviour despite its simplicity: the formula is just
379:
1464:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1354:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
533:
359:
337:
241:
89:
1315:
737:
656:
listed orbital parametrs are substantially at variance with those given by
240:), he's a retired professional astronomer who discovered some asteroids. --
112:
83:
52:
726:
327:
681:
But the differences are still minor. The exact numbers will vary due to
179:
745:
323:
1521:
1411:
1302:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140307125729/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/
1271:
1243:
1217:
1196:
1182:
1168:
1153:
1137:
1113:
1044:
1013:
989:
965:
945:
910:
Ahhh, the anonymity of the Internet, itâs a wonderful thing isnât it?
904:
865:
849:
828:
810:
783:
757:
712:
698:
668:
645:
626:
391:
348:
Doesn't the designation 1934 CT mean that it was first discovered in
1082:. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
622:
Forgive me if I made any goofs - this is my first wikipedia post. --
613:
1058:
1259:
570:
326:
and peers fear is that "the sky would fall on their heads" â and
913:
Kheider... firstly, I have no intention of editing the article.
349:
529:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=60054
308:
interesting. Thanks for enriching the entry for folks like me.
1305:
1053:
875:, I can not even begin to judge if your intention to remove a
633:
612:
The website I used to calculate the days between two dates is
366:
Nope, it means it was first spotted in 1934 and promptly lost.
15:
1321:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1229:
1057:
178:
154:
1436:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1296:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1429:
1289:
744:
45-55%; and absorption band also indicates presence of
412:
Much improved format. Those boxes are useful but ugly.
270:
I am glad that 3.99 is clarified as almost an integer.
1446:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast31oct_1.htm
1159:
there are free images which do depict this object. --
1123:
One of the images of the asteroid can be found on the
456:
1104:
It would be cool to plot the orbit in a graphic. --
607:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
1468:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1358:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
891:, I am all ears. Are you also biased against using
513:
636:Toutatis will pass 0.0463AU from the Earth. --
1454:This message was posted before February 2018.
1344:This message was posted before February 2018.
632:According to Horizons on 2012-Dec-12 at 06:40
618:http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html
8:
1546:C-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
169:, which collaborates on articles related to
111:, which collaborates on articles related to
1119:Copyright status of images of 4179 Toutatis
534:http://www-chaos.umd.edu/misc/poincare.html
1424:I have just modified one external link on
1316:http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
1228:Would it be appropriate putting a link to
304:Two moon distances is okay. Any closer is
47:
1284:I have just modified 2 external links on
835:Given that the next close approach is on
600:Significant/Interesting Date Corrolations
502:
483:
461:
455:
378:Actually 1934-02-10 would be the correct
1254:I came here after reading a chapter in
729:composition of Wo5-10 En50-35 Fs45-55."
514:{\displaystyle x_{n+1}=rx_{n}(1-x_{n})}
382:even if it was lost for many years. --
49:
19:
1576:Knowledge requested astronomy diagrams
703:Okay, that's making sense now. thx --
220:, but the article itself says it's an
1551:C-Class Astronomical objects articles
1333:to let others know (documentation at
7:
1566:Mid-importance Solar System articles
1230:https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Planets
105:This article is within the scope of
997:transit of the Earth across the Sun
38:It is of interest to the following
521:. Another classic example is the
14:
1541:Mid-importance Astronomy articles
1428:. Please take a moment to review
1288:. Please take a moment to review
614:http://www.easysurf.cc/ndate2.htm
889:December 12, 2012 close approach
166:WikiProject Astronomical objects
92:
82:
51:
20:
1089:For more information, refer to
893:David Morrison (astrophysicist)
141:This article has been rated as
121:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
1412:01:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
1272:01:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
951:So basically you are knocking
581:More accurate race track sizes
508:
489:
124:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
1561:C-Class Solar System articles
1218:05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1197:17:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1183:05:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
1169:02:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
1154:10:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
1138:21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
1114:23:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
1045:20:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
758:06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
713:06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
588:To be the same length as the
284:Near pass, September 29, 2004
187:This article is supported by
163:This article is supported by
1014:04:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
990:02:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
699:15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
669:04:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
646:02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1306:http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/
873:no established edit history
732:these look decipherable as
421:Comments moved from article
216:This asteroid is listed on
1592:
1536:C-Class Astronomy articles
1485:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1421:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1375:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1281:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1095:Knowledge:Requested images
966:07:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
946:05:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
905:13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
866:03:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
829:16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
811:14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
408:12:58, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
392:15:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
301:02:10, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
267:21:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
147:project's importance scale
1522:22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
895:as a reliable source? --
850:13:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
784:10:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
627:01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
596:12:50, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
577:11:24, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
554:06:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)--
362:16:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
340:15:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
293:08:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
279:02:08, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
228:09:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
186:
162:
140:
77:
46:
1244:18:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
1066:It is requested that an
569:orbit is categorized as
416:22:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
374:20:12, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
244:17:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1571:Solar System task force
1417:External links modified
1277:External links modified
1091:discussion on this page
558:06:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
190:Solar System task force
1093:and/or the listing at
1062:
515:
183:
159:
28:This article is rated
1061:
679:data from 1 APR 2001.
516:
330:is a Gallic sky god!
182:
158:
108:WikiProject Astronomy
1466:regular verification
1356:regular verification
454:
171:astronomical objects
64:Astronomical objects
1456:After February 2018
1346:After February 2018
1325:parameter below to
1080:improve its quality
1078:in this article to
1510:InternetArchiveBot
1461:InternetArchiveBot
1400:InternetArchiveBot
1351:InternetArchiveBot
1063:
837:December 12, 2012,
652:orbital parameters
511:
184:
160:
127:Astronomy articles
34:content assessment
1486:
1376:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1068:astronomy diagram
885:December 21, 2012
877:sourced statement
814:
797:comment added by
774:comment added by
448:logistic equation
397:Image positioning
209:
208:
205:
204:
201:
200:
1583:
1520:
1511:
1484:
1483:
1462:
1410:
1401:
1374:
1373:
1352:
1340:
1088:
1054:
986:
983:
980:
887:crowd given the
813:
791:
786:
520:
518:
517:
512:
507:
506:
488:
487:
472:
471:
129:
128:
125:
122:
119:
102:
100:Astronomy portal
97:
96:
95:
86:
79:
78:
73:
70:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1526:
1525:
1514:
1509:
1477:
1470:have permission
1460:
1434:this simple FaQ
1419:
1404:
1399:
1367:
1360:have permission
1350:
1334:
1294:this simple FaQ
1279:
1256:Exploring Chaos
1252:
1226:
1224:Classical Music
1121:
1052:
984:
981:
978:
974:
792:
769:
765:
723:
654:
602:
583:
523:double pendulum
498:
479:
457:
452:
451:
423:
399:
346:
320:
286:
251:
222:Alinda asteroid
218:Apollo asteroid
214:
126:
123:
120:
117:
116:
98:
93:
91:
71:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1589:
1587:
1579:
1578:
1573:
1568:
1563:
1558:
1553:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1528:
1527:
1504:
1503:
1496:
1449:
1448:
1440:Added archive
1418:
1415:
1394:
1393:
1386:
1319:
1318:
1310:Added archive
1308:
1300:Added archive
1278:
1275:
1264:211.225.33.104
1251:
1248:
1225:
1222:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1161:Robert Horning
1130:Robert Horning
1120:
1117:
1100:
1099:
1087:
1064:
1051:
1048:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1019:
1017:
1016:
973:
970:
969:
968:
908:
907:
853:
852:
832:
831:
764:
761:
722:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
677:easily trumps
653:
650:
649:
648:
601:
598:
582:
579:
562:
561:
560:
559:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
531:
510:
505:
501:
497:
494:
491:
486:
482:
478:
475:
470:
467:
464:
460:
437:
436:
422:
419:
418:
417:
398:
395:
380:discovery date
376:
375:
368:
367:
345:
342:
319:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
285:
282:
281:
280:
250:
247:
246:
245:
234:User:Desertsky
213:
210:
207:
206:
203:
202:
199:
198:
195:Mid-importance
185:
175:
174:
161:
151:
150:
143:Mid-importance
139:
133:
132:
130:
104:
103:
87:
75:
74:
72:Midâimportance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1588:
1577:
1574:
1572:
1569:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1559:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1549:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1481:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1457:
1452:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1426:4179 Toutatis
1422:
1416:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1371:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1347:
1342:
1338:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:4179 Toutatis
1282:
1276:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1249:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1231:
1223:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:220.136.38.62
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:70.24.247.127
1172:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:70.24.247.127
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1118:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1096:
1092:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1050:Orbit diagram
1049:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
992:
991:
987:
971:
967:
963:
959:
954:
953:the reference
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
933:
931:
925:
921:
918:
914:
911:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
851:
847:
843:
838:
834:
833:
830:
826:
822:
817:
816:
815:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
787:
785:
781:
777:
776:98.17.159.156
773:
762:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
720:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
620:
619:
615:
610:
608:
599:
597:
595:
591:
586:
580:
578:
576:
572:
566:
557:
553:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
535:
532:
530:
527:
526:
524:
503:
499:
495:
492:
484:
480:
476:
473:
468:
465:
462:
458:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
433:
432:
429:
428:
420:
415:
411:
410:
409:
407:
403:
396:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
373:
370:
369:
365:
364:
363:
361:
358:
355:
351:
343:
341:
339:
336:
333:
329:
325:
317:
311:
307:
303:
302:
300:
296:
295:
294:
292:
283:
278:
273:
272:
271:
268:
266:
261:
260:
258:
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
227:
223:
219:
211:
196:
193:(assessed as
192:
191:
181:
177:
176:
172:
168:
167:
157:
153:
152:
148:
144:
138:
135:
134:
131:
115:on Knowledge.
114:
110:
109:
101:
90:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1508:
1505:
1480:source check
1459:
1453:
1450:
1423:
1420:
1398:
1395:
1370:source check
1349:
1343:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1320:
1283:
1280:
1255:
1253:
1236:18.236.7.115
1234:
1227:
1207:
1122:
1103:
1090:
1071:
1067:
1034:
1018:
1001:2012-Dec-12,
975:
938:TomTerrahawk
934:
929:
926:
922:
919:
915:
912:
909:
858:TomTerrahawk
854:
799:TomTerrahawk
793:â Preceding
788:
770:â Preceding
766:
750:99.233.186.4
734:wollastonite
724:
705:99.233.186.4
683:perturbation
661:99.233.186.4
655:
624:65.57.245.11
621:
611:
603:
587:
584:
567:
563:
556:24.92.199.18
542:
430:
424:
400:
377:
347:
321:
305:
287:
269:
262:
256:
254:
252:
215:
188:
164:
142:
106:
68:Solar System
40:WikiProjects
1337:Sourcecheck
1125:China Daily
1084:Graphic Lab
763:Objectivity
742:ferrosilite
721:composition
1530:Categories
1517:Report bug
1407:Report bug
936:Knowledge.
689:chosen.--
590:Indy track
1500:this tool
1493:this tool
1390:this tool
1383:this tool
972:Outdated?
738:enstatite
427:Mackensen
372:Urhixidur
253:Article:
118:Astronomy
113:Astronomy
59:Astronomy
1506:Cheers.â
1396:Cheers.â
1076:included
1072:diagrams
807:contribs
795:unsigned
772:unsigned
740:50-35%,
727:pyroxene
685:and the
328:Toutatis
257:0.006 AU
249:.006 AU?
212:Comments
1430:my edit
1323:checked
1290:my edit
1189:JorisvS
1037:Patbahn
1006:Kheider
958:Kheider
897:Kheider
881:sincere
842:Kheider
821:Kheider
746:olivine
736:5-10%,
691:Kheider
638:Kheider
594:Doradus
575:Doradus
571:Chaotic
444:Doradus
406:Doradus
384:Kheider
357:ÎνΏĎΚον
344:1934 CT
335:ÎνΏĎΚον
324:Asterix
318:Asterix
299:Doradus
277:Doradus
145:on the
30:C-class
1331:failed
1106:Beland
414:Wetman
402:Golbez
310:Wetman
291:Wetman
265:Golbez
36:scale.
1260:Pluto
1250:Names
1246:Zach
979:Simon
748:. --
687:epoch
552:Mylon
242:Curps
226:Bryan
1327:true
1268:talk
1240:talk
1214:talk
1193:talk
1179:talk
1165:talk
1150:talk
1134:talk
1110:talk
1041:talk
1010:talk
962:talk
942:talk
901:talk
862:talk
846:talk
825:talk
803:talk
780:talk
754:talk
709:talk
695:talk
665:talk
642:talk
388:talk
350:1934
238:talk
1474:RfC
1444:to
1364:RfC
1341:).
1329:or
1314:to
1304:to
1074:be
1070:or
879:is
675:JPL
634:UTC
306:too
137:Mid
1532::
1487:.
1482:}}
1478:{{
1377:.
1372:}}
1368:{{
1339:}}
1335:{{
1270:)
1262:.
1242:)
1220:)
1216:)
1195:)
1181:)
1167:)
1152:)
1136:)
1112:)
1097:.
1086:.
1043:)
1012:)
995:A
988:"
982:Or
964:)
944:)
903:)
864:)
848:)
827:)
809:)
805:â˘
782:)
756:)
711:)
697:)
667:)
644:)
609:.
496:â
390:)
352:?
275:--
197:).
66:/
62::
1519:)
1515:(
1502:.
1495:.
1409:)
1405:(
1392:.
1385:.
1266:(
1238:(
1212:(
1191:(
1177:(
1163:(
1148:(
1132:(
1108:(
1039:(
1008:(
985:J
960:(
940:(
899:(
860:(
844:(
823:(
801:(
778:(
752:(
707:(
693:(
663:(
640:(
509:)
504:n
500:x
493:1
490:(
485:n
481:x
477:r
474:=
469:1
466:+
463:n
459:x
442:(
386:(
360:}
354:{
338:}
332:{
236:(
173:.
149:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
