Talk:2007 TU24

POV
"That means that NASA has completely ruled out any Earth impact possibility for at least the next 100 years." should be changed to read "That means that NASA has ruled out any Earth impact possibility for known potentially hazardous asteroids with regular orbits at least the next 100 years." Additionally, there is still one object which is a level 1 on the Torino scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.172.159 (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll live.
Google 2007 TU24 hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.20.184 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)



Anything could be construed as a hoax - more-so if you just rely on one source. Let's help triangulate the truth. This is an up-and-coming important event, in my opinion. --gnomelock (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Outlook Not So Good
Here's a search for the results on NASA's page if you search for TU24. Also, someone else deleted it, but for now we should leave out "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" as that is a strongly POV statement.--Mr Bucket (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask Again Later
I'm confused, how can they spot a potentially hazardous asteroid a mere year before its scheduled passing date, yet state that its the only potentially dangerous asteroid to pass us until 2027? Comradeash (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This one was assessed to destroy almost everything in about 150 km radius, had it been on the impact course. It remains to be seen what they will say if that is indeed the case in some similar future event, and I'm glad that it is so. 91.153.48.200 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the one in 2027 will be a past asteroid returning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.143.211 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, his point wasn't that the one in 2027 won't be dangerous, but rather that it seems far more likely that our abilities to spot asteroids are sufficient to predict the one in 2027 will be the first, given that we only found TU24 a year in advance. Ah, and I have deleted the first signature, I posted this comment but I forgot to log in first.--Mr Bucket (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The major impression I got from the article and sources, is that the immediate hazard is to Mars, not Earth, and, otherwise, it's still a matter of potentials and knowns, versus unknowns and improbables--gnomelock (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

TU24 was the only known hazardous asteroid until Apophis in 2027. There could be an unknown asteroid on course to hit Earth in a week. Additionally, the Mars danger is from 2007 WD5, whose impact has been ruled out for several weeks. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

interwiki
this page hat error interwiki. only fi.wiki and .pl.wiki is OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.69 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki articles are for news worthy
Considering that this article was obviously created off the false doomsday hype can I ask is it note worthy of having a wiki page? Most require something special. This one hasn't been in the news and roughly a week ago an asteroid came even closer. And please, I want an actual response and not an overlly defensive GLP conspirisy buff... Stabby Joe (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's notable. That I have no doubt about. An asteroid which has the potential to wipe out life on earth is notable in the extreme.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to not have an article about 2007 TU24. It's a cataloged space object about which one can write a few factual paragraphs. Wikipedia is not just for newsworthy items. That TU24 is subject to a bunch of "electric universe" fear-mongering does not mean it should not have an article. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Further updates
This chapter should be edited: it doesn't look good to me.

--194.151.163.166 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

photo
Can this photo be used in the article? Bubba73 (talk), 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Images appearing on APoD have to be tracked back to their sources, as merely appearing on nasa.gov does not make something public domain. It appears to be a JPL image, and according to Using JPL images, their terms are acceptable (free use provided a credit). I went ahead and added it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 11:23, 31 January 2008 (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.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=118&art_id=vn20080124063319844C968336
 * In 2007 TU24 on 2011-05-26 03:03:45, 403 Forbidden
 * In 2007 TU24 on 2011-05-27 15:20:47, 403 Forbidden
 * In 2007 TU24 on 2011-06-15 18:21:37, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2007 TU24. 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/20080124150947/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news157.html to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news157.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120161427/http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/2007TU24/2007TU24planning.html to http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/2007TU24/2007TU24planning.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) 23:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)