Talk:(29075) 1950 DA

Torino scale?
If 1950 DA has such a high chance of hitting Earth, why isn't it on the Torino scale? &#969;hkoh &#91;&#1058;&#93; 05:15, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * See Why isn't 1950 DA listed on the Risk Page?. -- Neutralitytalk 18:16, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

The Torino scale is typically only computed to include impact probabilities out to 100 years in the future.
 * I have seen a lot of websites claiming that 1950 DA has a rating of 2, and when I input it's parameters, it indeed seems to be a 2, but it's risk isn't within 100 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.227.22 (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That comment was added by 68.249.109.115 at 19:38, 7 May 2010 and was unreferenced. I have removed the statement since it is confusing and misleading to the causal reader. -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Extinction event?
An impact would probably not cause a extinction event like the one 65 million years ago - the planetoid is similar in size to the one which created the Nördlinger Ries; until now no extinction event was found in the fossil record as a result of this impact. (anon)


 * Good point. The claim seems very speculative and is probably wrong. The Impact event article says:
 * Based on crater formation rates determined from the Earth's closest celestial partner, the Moon, astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of five kilometers or more. The smallest of these impactors would release the equivalent of 10 million megatons of TNT
 * This one is just 1km in diameter, so is much smaller. I changed "would" to "could" for now, but the article really should have a better documented discussion on the consequences of an impact. Shanes 30 June 2005 04:16 (UTC)


 * How likely is it that the more dire prediction was based on an unusally high predicted impact velocity? Does the Earth's atmosphere make relative velocity irrelevant?  Rimfax 7 October 2005 15:24 (UTC)
 * Relative velocity is not irrelevant, but the probability that the more dire prediction was based on anything other than sensationalism is practically zero. Icek 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perversia?
Since the name Perversia is as yet undocumented on http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/mn/ nor http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/ECS/NewCitations.txt, I'm almost convinced this is vandalism. I've already reverted most affected pages, but now I'm in doubt...If vandalism, it is really thorough. As soon as independent confirmation appears (probably next month), I'll happily undo my undoing.

Urhixidur 13:43, 2005 July 29 (UTC)


 * The equivalent article on de: was also deleted. I have reverted the text of the article back. --cesarb 14:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you get no confirmations later, please ask for deletion of the redirects ((29075) Perversia and Talk:(29075) Perversia). --cesarb 15:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not in . At best, premature.  And note by our somewhat arbitrary asteroid article naming standards, if it was ever named "Perversia" our article title would be 29075 Perversia and not (29075) Perversia. I have deleted the redirects. -- Curps 00:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was the most recent rube to perpetuate this. How persistent does this hoax need to get before it deserves documentation on the page as a hoax name? -- Rimfax 04:17, 7 Octover 2005 (UTC)

An error?
This article says that the object is "an asteroid considered to be the near Earth object with the highest known probability of crashing into Earth." Yet on Precovery, it is declared that "the asteroid was determined to have a small chance of colliding with the Earth." Which one is right? -- Guthrie


 * Both. A small chance (1 in 300), but still the one asteroid known to have the greatest probability of impact. Shanes 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The chance is even smaller, about 1 in 600, as the axis of rotation is uncertain. Icek (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

M-type?
This article was recently linked to the M-type category. The spectral type of 1950 DA is currently unknown. It may be either M-type or E-type (Rivkin et al. 2002). I have removed the category link. Michaelbusch 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic ocean
Hi. I have read somewhere, that the Atlantic Ocean is facing the asteroid when it may impact the Earth. I think I can easily find a creadible source such as NASA. Should it be added to the article? Also, I believe the article is too short for something so important. I think it can easliy be expanded. Should I or someone else do so when I/they have time? Thanks. ~ A  H  1  (TCU) 19:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do so if you have reliable sources. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Broken link?
Second external link is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catdsnny (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
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!


 * http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/tsunami_asteroid_030602.html
 * In (29075) 1950 DA on 2011-05-20 21:17:49, 404 Not Found
 * In (29075) 1950 DA on 2011-05-31 04:13:54, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on (29075) 1950 DA. 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://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/1950da/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402122939/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)