Talk:101955 Bennu

Bennu's Mass

Spaceflight Now, 31 Jan 2019 states the density of Bennu has been determined to be 1.2 (20% higher than water in their words). Assuming the overall shape is a double cone, the density & physical dimensions lead to a mass estimate of 40 million tons, which is lower than the two current figures in the sidebar. If someone could find a direct citation to a current mass estimate, that would be nice. Danielravennest (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent Media Attention on RQ36

Currently, assorted media are carrying stories about RQ36. They quote an impact probability of "approximately 1 in a thousand". These stories are based an interview and a press release by Maria Eugenia Sansaturio, who is reporting the results from the Milani et al. paper that is already cited in the article. The Milani et al. paper is the primary source, and is more accurate than the sound-bites in the secondary stories - for example, it includes a discussion of the Yarkovsky force on RQ36, which dominates the uncertainty in the object's trajectory.

The radar-derived shape model of RQ36 is still awaiting publication. When it is available, the impact forecast will be significantly improved. Michaelbusch (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Something about this new media blitz needs to be included. Sattmaster (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why only NASA's information about it? What about the ISRO? They have newer pictures in higher res and would be the latest info about the NEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.162.236 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The link to Yarkovsky effect

The link to Yarkovsky effect is repeated four times in this article. Isn't one enough? Should the later three be removed?--Adûnâi (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done: by User:Adûnâi -- Hadron137 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Measuring the Yarkovsky effect is one of the main objectives of the mission, and linking it once is WP:UNDERLINK. Per MOS: "[...] a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Such a critical concept and a goal of the mission, can surely be linked twice per MOS. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitting Venus

Reading this, I was baffled that an asteroid whose perihelion lies outside the orbit of Venus is claimed to be more likely to strike Venus than Earth. Looking at the quoted reference, it emerges that there is no paradox; hitting Earth is (far) more likely in the next couple hundred years; hitting Venus is more likely over the next 300 million years. I put in a quote from the reference source to make this distinction clear and hope this will be ok. Opus33 (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the orbit of a NEO can change very rapidly as the result of just one perturbation. The current epoch tells you very little about the past/future without doing orbital integrations. -- Kheider (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If anything I wrote was inaccurate or incomplete do feel free to fix. (I'm out on a limb editing an astronomy article.) Opus33 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"The presence of hydroxyl..."

Ugh, not again. The 'hydroxyl' diction, versus water, is arbitrary since the two interconvert- 4OH -> 2H2O + O2, as hydroxyl is unstable.

In any case, citing hydroxyl per se is not defensible. Serpentinites ("phyllosilicate rock") retain hydroxyl (OH), but smectites ("clay") retain literal H2O. Carbonates generally retain OH, sulfates generally retain literal H20. I can go on.

The project's own scientists use the term water, not hydroxyl. So does the text's own CITED REFERENCE. The scientists win, versus a pop sci website. The logical conclusion is that the use of "hydroxyl" on Bennu (when it is not a term in common, nonspecialist usage) is a deliberate obfuscation.

64.134.243.23 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, regarding your thermodynamic equivalency: it applies to liquid water at 24°C under one atmosphere of pressure. Hardly the physical parameters in the deep freeze and vacuum of outer space. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Water was NOT found on Bennu. They found compounds that, in the past, were formed in the presence of water. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a "pop sci" interpretation, "Science Daily" only reprinted the press release by the OSIRIS-Rex team without any editorials: [1]) Perhaps a better word to explain the find in this article would be hydrated minerals (Mineral hydration) instead of "hydroxyl". Hydrated minerals are not "wet minerals". Agreed? And the mission team also describes it as hydrated minerals. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

??? PI and project staff write “water”- actual H2O- in multiple places c.f.,

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qaPHXXZTkAU

~3um band- not a line, not a single spectral feature at all- includes both mineralogical absorptions and that of _water_itself_. Clay minerals (smectites not serpentinites, but both found together in carbonaceous objects) retain actual H2O _in_the_present_, because they metamorph back to parent silicates when dehydrated- yet they’re still clay today, and wet as clay.

Not agreed- "Science is true whether you believe it or not" 65.246.72.82 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Hydroxyl and hydrated minerals are not water. The mission press releae and text explains there is no water there, and that the parent body may have had it. As NASA summarized the technical lingo: "[…] meaning that at some point, Bennu’s rocky material interacted with water." [2] Right, at some point it bore water. It is gone now. No water. Bound OH- is not water. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not distinguish between the two, as spectroscopes generally cannot readily distinguish between the two, OVIRS finds no significant difference between the two... and they interconvert anyway. Zhu et al. 2020 demonstrates that they are likely interconverting right now, as they have been doing. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Mission Principal Investigator Dante Lauretta: "Water Found" https://twitter.com/DSLauretta/status/1072310139082993664 because water (H2O) contains a hydroxy bond (O-H), and another one. The effect, to first order, is to double the strength of the spectral feature. This is in addition to the inherent H2O line there: "The three micron absorption region is due to a combination of hydroxyl and water." (Lucey et al. Water Absorption At 6 Microns: A New Tool For Remote Measurements Of Lunar Surface Water Abundance And Variation... there is an integer multiple of 6 um that contributes to 3 um.) Hence the ~3 micron feature is a band, not a line. There is NO statement that "it is gone now, no water". Some point includes BOTH the past and the present, AND bound OH is functionally equivalent to water anyway: www.minsocam.org/MSA/RIM/rim62.html https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/water-in-nominally-anhydrous-minerals-hans-keppler/1008192090?ean=9780939950744 If the chemistry 101 notion of OH and H2O being non-fungible is your level of chemistry, then your level of chemistry needs a higher level... like up to Itokawa: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25143_Itokawa#2018_Hayabusa_Results

64.134.243.23 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Many news articles were published claiming that water had been discovered. Some even put this mistake right in the title (maybe as a clickbait ploy). I think that a lot of these were written by reporters with no background in science and they just misinterpreted the press release and abstract. Still, they went for the sensational news hook despite their lack of understanding. Maybe a link should be added to to an article that explains the difference dispels the notion of water on Bennu. Otherwise this mistake will probably be continue to be repeated by other non-science reporters in the future. KosmicMuffin (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Scientists continue to repeat their previous finding of geochemical and meteoritic water. Hamilton et al. 2020, comfirming and clarifying Hamilton et al. 2019, plus the concurrences of multiple, outside groups. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

NASA put it in as a clickbait ploy? The mission home site put it in as a clickbait ploy??? Dante Lauretta tweeted it as a clickbait ploy???? The project team announced it at the AGU meeting ("Water-Rich") as a clickbait ploy????? (https://youtube.com/watch?v=qaPHXXZTkAU)

64.134.243.23 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Past water found "In the form of hydrated clays". -Laureta. Bound OH- is not water. He summarized the finding as this: "[…] meaning that at some point, Bennu’s rocky material interacted with water." [3] Right, at some point it bore water. It is gone now. No water. Bound OH- is not water. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Scientists continue to repeat their previous finding of geochemical and meteoritic water. Orbital observations have not contradicted Dec 10, 2018 approach results, but increased resolution and SNR- band shape indicates mixed OH and H2O spectral modes. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition of hydrated mineral as in our WP article: Mineral hydration is an inorganic chemical reaction where water is added to the crystal structure of a mineral, usually creating a new mineral, usually called a hydrate. Chemically bound OH- is not water.

Laureta's full quote is: "That means that at some point, Bennu's rocky material interacted with water. The asteroid doesn't have free flowing water or ice, but likely broke off from a larger asteroid that did." Hydration reaction is proof that liquid water was present there at some point. See your YouTube video at 10:30 min. The probe just got there and it is still possible they'll find ice in the subsurface. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

They have found water. Hamilton, V., Simon, A., Kaplan, H., et al. ...to Lauretta, D. 51st LPSC. Mar 2020 "VNIR and TIR spectral characteristics of (101955) Bennu from OSIRIS-REx Detailed Survey and Reconnaissance Observations" 1049: OVIRS Results

Because this water reservoir can fluidize, under both natural (existing) conditions and human-extractive ones: Zhu, C., Góbi, S., Abplanalp, M., Frigge, R., Gillis-Davis, J., Dominguez, G., Miljković, K., Kaiser, R. Nature Astronomy, Jan 2020 "Regenerative water sources on surfaces of airless bodies." vol. 4 p. 45-52 DOI 10.1038/s41550-019-0900-2, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0900-2 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Definition of hydrated mineral as in our WP article: Mineral hydration is..." Look folks, circular evidence! That WP is the province of, at its most charitable, computer experts, and at worst, Dunning-Kruger-unaware fanboys is not our problem. Signed, me and the OSIRIS-REx staffers I eat and drink with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.89 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is there so much citations?? The claim that 'hydrogen is water' is inherently controversial... to laymen, not to planetary scientists such as those of OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa X. It is thus inherent to the editing of this page that a seemingly controversial entry is well-credited. The talk replies above clearly demonstrate that WP is overrun- and thus, run- by those who _think_ they are trained, qualified, and experienced enough to speak on behalf of e.g., geologists, meteoriticists, planetary spectroscopists, etc. all the while posting, such that they are _not_ trained, qualified, and experienced. However, in the interest of stopping disinformation, I have limited the citation lengths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.89 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"beyond the scope of this article" Let's see... composition (giving classification and implying origin), meteorite-asteroid parentage, and greater Solar System context, as given by three separate OSIRIS-REx investigators _including the principal investigator_. It seems to me that YOU are beyond the scope of your authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If the spectrometers cannot tell the difference of hydroxyl bonded to minerals or water, it does not mean that hydroxyl radical is identical to water and that the dry rock becomes under a semantic game, "water-rich". Again, the PI stated that the parent body may have had water. Currently, Benu doesn't (no liquid water, no water ice, no water vapor.} We are glad it can detect -OH bound to minerals. The best they could state on Tuesday's conference was the finding of magnetite, which supports that its parent body had water at some point in the ancient past. This is akin of quoting a biologist talk about "junk DNA" and then you writing about how cells are full of junk. Semantic games are not beneficial in Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"The best they could state on Tuesday's conference was the finding of magnetite, which supports that its parent body had water at some point in the ancient past. This is akin of quoting a biologist talk about "junk DNA" and then you writing about how cells are full of junk. Semantic games are not beneficial in Wikipedia." Rowan Forest (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"including carbonaceous-chondrite mineral magnetite.[29][30][31] Magnetite, a spectrally prominent[32][33] water product[34][35][36] but destroyed by heat,[36] is an important proxy of astronomers.[37][38][39]"

QED. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad nauseam, you are clearly not qualified to speak for us _still_. Read the article text, or I will summarize:

"The hydrogen content of the carbonaceous chondrites is normally reported as H2O... The carbonaceous chondrites have a high water content, reaching almost 20% in the Type I meteorites. This water content represents hydrogen in a variety of forms-..." Mason, B 1962

Garenne, Beck, Montes-Hernandez, Brissaud, Schmitt, Quirico, Bonal, Beck, Howard, Icarus 2016 sec. Band depth

Weiss, Lazor, Skogby Physics and Chemistry of Minerals 2018 secs. Introduction; Summary and conclusions

Cartier, Eos 2019 "The planetary science community uses hydrogen as a proxy for water content"

This principle is well-established in the meteoritics community... which you would have known if you were in it. You do not know how to impersonate us, but that doesn't stop you from trying. You also are unaware that, in large organizations such as universities and government agencies, PR work is delegated to nonscientific copy writers... you are unaware of a great many things. Hence, I give peer-reviewed publications, such as Geochim. Chim. Acta, Icarus, Meteor.Plan.Sci., EPS, etc. where possible, though for rapidly-appearing works like probe spectral analyses, peer review often can't keep up. Hence I have also cited scientists' direct interviews. Do you even read GCA, M&PS, or even Icarus?64.134.100.100 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review: WP:SYNTHESIS. And for the fourth time: Laureta's full quote is: "That means that at some point, Bennu's rocky material interacted with water. The asteroid doesn't have free flowing water or ice, but likely broke off from a larger asteroid that did." -Rowan Forest (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

They have found water, because this water reservoir can fludize, under both natural and human-extractive conditions. It is you who insist water has only three phenomenologies, and not a recently-studied one (Zhu et al. 2020). A recently-tested, measured, and published one, yet a long-suspected one, as Zhu et al. describe themselves in the background of their paper. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review: Hydrogen alone is a highly reactive species, just like oxygen. So in an oxidizing environment, like silicates (SIO4), the limiting factor becomes hydrogen availability. Not hydrogen solubility, as the hydrogen ion is the smallest possible reactant, entering crystal lattices at will. Crystal lattices where oxygen is already present: Cartier, K. M. S. (2019), First analysis of asteroid water reveals Earth-like makeup, Eos, 100, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EO122637 (https://eos.org/articles/first-analysis-of-asteroid-water-reveals-earth-like-makeup). ""It’s “bone dry with respect to anything in our human experience,” Bose said, “but it is still wet enough and with the correct isotope composition to provide more than half of the water on Earth.”"

At what point does "free flowing" become relevant or necessary, let alone sufficient? The agriculture and construction fields already deal with water as soil moisture. The notion that you speak for biology as well as geology and planetary science is utter and complete arrogance on your part. Post a fifth and sixth time, it will still be your notion of the cosmos as you perceive it: http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/jeff-hester/2018/01/constrained-hallucinations

"Free flowing" becomes relevant or necessary when your mind finds it convenient.144.178.4.12 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

At what point you decided that "no water" (liquid or ice) means "water rich"? At what point you decided to contradict and even override Laureta's findings? Rowan Forest (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

When I spoke with Lauretta- before Hamilton, V., Simon, A., Kaplan, H., ...Lauretta, D. 2020

If you find Hamilton, Simon 2018 ambiguous, then Hamilton, Simon 2020 clarifies it. Thanks, Dr. Hamilton. Rowan Forest, At what point do _you_ decide that you can tell us how to do our jobs? Wait, we know why. Or do you think Lauretta is unable to clarify himself?

As "personal communication" is allowed in scientific journals but not WP, my numerous citations will have to do. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Lessee, that would be when Co-I's Beth Clark &Rick Binzel clarified Lauretta, as needed for general reading:

https://www.ithaca.edu/news/qa-water-found-asteroid "IC NEWS: How did the scientists working on OSIRIS-REx find evidence of water?"

http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-rexis-and-bennu-watery-surface-0129 "Bennu appears to contain this primordial water, providing clues to how such material was delivered to Earth, leading to a habitable world."

...as I have already posted in the article ref section. Apparently you are not parsing the references, let alone clicking them. It is not contradicting or overriding Lauretta's findings when we actually know what he's talking about, versus English diction and phrasing.

There's also that '"water" (liquid or ice)' doesn't cover it. Doesn't even come close. There is so much you don't know about solid state chemistry, ion implantation and exchange, let alone cosmochemistry, Solar System processes, etc. but again, you THINK you do. Again, you think you know lots of things but clearly demonstrate that you don't. The number of water phases, intermediary forms, and/or storage mechanisms and processes will boggle your bystander brain. Hint: it's more than two, thank you very much for offering your notions.

Oh, and there's also the OSIRIS-REx staffers I eat and drink with, again as I have already posted above. We know what our impersonators look like; by definition, everyone who is informed, qualified, and experienced was, at some point, uninformed, unqualified, and inexperienced. It looks like you.64.134.100.100 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a work for and by the meteoritics community. It is a general purpose encyclopedic work. Many readers may have no functional knowledge of chemistry, and few will have any knowledge of meteoritics. The reason we have science journalists is because so many scientists are awful at communicating with the general public.

If you want to say that it has hydrogen and oxygen, then let's say that. Most users will understand that water can be created easily from the asteroid, and meteoriticists will understand that it means it has "water" in their sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest stands as a proud demonstration that most users WON'T understand, but they THINK they will. Really, really think they will. We in the knowledge fields are quite aware that people want to impersonate us, and feel no qualms about doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect 64.134.100.100 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget our Hindu nationalist friend, 101.103.162.236 above:

Why only NASA's information about it? What about the ISRO? They have newer pictures in higher res and would be the latest info about the NEO

A WP in which he and Rowan Forest feel not only entitled but compelled to post is a WP doomed to mediocrity.

You strike me as a good example of Dunning-Kruger, one of the more vicious forms, where someone has a high degree and then imagines they know how to do a myriad things they're untrained in. Just because you know science doesn't make you qualified to write an encyclopedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And what do you think now? 65.74.234.146 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your IP says you're posting from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania and Waterloo, Iowa, not exactly hotbeds of science work. We in the knowledge fields know that some of us like to boost our own credentials and consider abusing other people more important than educating them. If most users won't understand anyway, why are you bitching at us demanding an irrelevant change?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, you know how to whois! I am not in either of those towns (or states, as it turns out). That is the vagarity of the internet, and not in my control. I am in a hotbed of science work, and planetary science at that. Either way (though it's a space scientific way in my particular case), Science is a sufficiently credible citation, Space Science Reviews is a sufficiently credible citation, GCA and M&PS are sufficiently credible citation, and Nature is a sufficiently credible citation. My personal credentials won't (and can't) be used as WP citation anyway, hence I had to find peer-reviewed journals... including review journals where needed.64.134.100.100 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

So we have the claims of an anonymous person on the internet, versus facts. Hmm...--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Factoids had their fad in the 80s. We are interested in process and system, as they lead to other processes and systems. "Facts" (lay term) in isolation are interesting tidbits, but only relevant if leading to greater goals. Such as mobilization via lethal radiation and >10 km/sec meteoroids. Conditions which exist in no museum of which I am aware. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Phyllosilicates can certainly be heated to break them down and release the ions that can form water. But that guy insists that precursor ions are the same as water, and hinges on that for his extensive WP:synthesis so that magically, asteroid Bennu became "water rich" comet Bennu. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Outside commentators Bates, King et al. 2019: "water-rich asteroids".

Outside commentators Potin, Beck et al. 2020: "HFW [High Frequency Water] and LFW [Low Frequency Water] components of asteroids and meteorites" including review of Bennu data.

If you are still unclear, see outside review Morbidelli, Karato et al. 2018 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-018-0545-y) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Take it up with Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-information-authors ; take it up with Nature: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission ; take it up with GCA: https://ees.elsevier.com/gca/default.asp . That is, if they will entertain you, let alone suffer you.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Z01FzDkprgUC&dq=sagan+%22fractured+ceramics%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s "[Carl Sagan's] file drawers began to fill with communications he and his secretary Shirley Arden discreetly referred to as "fractured ceramics," a gentle euphemism for "crackpots."

Again, I will assume you have not even read the citations you feel are not sufficient. Here, try one that even has a pretty picture to demonstrate it: https://curation.isas.jaxa.jp/symposium/abstract/2018/1206_1015_Luke_Daly.pdf64.134.100.100 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is over. "Controversial" statements in the article are amply cited using reliable sources, in fact, cited to a fault (see above). This is because Bennu's water content is NOT CONTROVERSIAL within our field. Rowan Forest is clearly not in our field, attempting to substitute [[Argumentum ad populum |outside information]], and openly [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others |deleting cited additions]] instead of tagging as appropriate and directed by WP policy. Instead, Rowan Forest has used circular citation and false consensus from terrestrial perceptions, which do not apply to off-Earth research, and even some on-earth applications, besides their intersection in meteoritics. The standard of "liquid or ice" is a fabricated notion, which he has never cited, and likely never will as our field does not include his notions (except by chance).

Amply-cited text is amply cited, and will remain.64.134.100.100 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In plain English: in common usage, potential ionic precursors are not water (ice, liquid, nor vapor). They found hydrated silicates, that is amply referenced WITHOUT WP:synthesis on how it could be processed. The fact that it can be heated to break the hydroxyl bonds and re-form water is not disputed. Can the hydrates be processed to make ~20% water by weight? Yes. Its water potential is not the same as its presence. In Wikipedia, we have to write science articles so that someone with a high school diploma can understand the general idea. Wikipedia editors strive to be mindful of IUPAC's advice and nomenclature but do not follow this advice rigidly, especially when the advice deviates from mainstream usage (WP:Manual of Style/Chemistry). "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." (WP:Manual of Style) If the mission found hydrated minerals, we report hydrated minerals, not water. If hydrated minerals can be processed to extract ions to produce water, that is a subject that can be explained elsewhere. Your adding 18,000 bytes on the chemistry of hydrates does not serve. Thank you for your participation. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Again: the finding of hydrated minerals is referenced at the end of the sentence. Placing a hyperlink to Hydrated minerals is for people that wonder what that is. Such an intralink is NOT a circular Wikipedia reference, but a standard procedure. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is still over. "Controversial" statements in the article are amply cited using reliable sources, in fact, cited to a fault (see above). This is because Bennu's water content is NOT CONTROVERSIAL within our field. Rowan Forest is clearly not in our field, attempting to substitute [[Argumentum ad populum |outside information]], and openly [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others |deleting cited additions]] instead of tagging, as appropriate and directed by WP policy. Instead, Rowan Forest has used circular citation ("Perhaps a better word to explain the find in this article would be hydrated minerals (Mineral hydration) instead of "hydroxyl". Hydrated minerals are not "wet minerals". Agreed?") and false consensus from terrestrial perceptions, which do not apply to off-Earth research, and even some on-earth applications, besides their intersection in meteoritics. The standard of "liquid or ice", specified by you above as "free flowing water or ice" is a fabricated notion, which Rowan Forest has never cited, and likely never will as our field does not include his notions (except by chance).

Amply-cited text is amply cited, and will remain. I can (and have) provided peer-reviewed citations in excess, and can do so again, and can draw upon my field for yet more. You (Rowan Forest) have yet to provide a single, high-standard citation that does not, in fact, align with the consensus of the field, which is that a subset of meteorites- and thus, their parent asteroids (now in determination)- are, quote, water-rich. Because, knowing multiple processes and systems, not facts to memorize without Solar System context, our consensus of water-rich is not that of the person on the street.64.134.100.100 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You're out of your field. This edit is not a sane addition to an encyclopedia, or even any real piece of writing. This article is about 101955 Bennu, and should avoid discussing any other subject. You haven't acknowledged that you are writing for a general-audience encyclopedia, and not for people in your alleged field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't even know what the field looks like, per Stage 1. Given that the subject at hand is outside the realm of human experience- both on micro and tele levels- the average person 'doesn't get it' and needs background information. This is the background information, and the acknowledgement that I am writing for a general audience. An audience that is not geochemists, nor mantle geologists, nor Solar System dynamicists, and won't simply get our field:

Wikipedia:Citation_underkill

Also note that you have failed to use Template:Technical, Template:Context, or Template:Confusing, in line with WP policy, versus my numerous attempts to provide context, technical background, and clarification.

64.134.100.100 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments below seem relevant to the present discussion - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Copied from "User talk:Drbogdan#101955 Bennu"

-- 101955 Bennu --

The geochemistry of space (and off-Earth, and in the mantle for that matter) is admittedly esoteric and less accessible. Therefore I have taken great effort to provide numerous, peer-reviewed and consistent citations for all "claims" (in the context of WP, that is). I have even been called upon to limit these extensive citations, as you can see from the article's history and talk pages. However, the net result still stands: Solar System hydrogeochemistry, odd as it may look to the uninitiated, is not in dispute. A side issue is that OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa 2 are operating as fast or faster than the peer-review process, and sometimes more pedestrian citations are included out of expediency. In between are conference proceedings.

You appear to be versed in peer-reviewed journals. If you have access to, e.g., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Space Science Reviews, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, EPS, JGR, etc., then it's simply a matter of you reading the listed citations. I have included pointers/blurbs in my cites to make this reading less tedious. If you do not have official access, many of the journal papers cited are nonetheless open access, if nothing else by chance. You may have sufficient luck verifying citations this way. If you do not have the time or inclination to actually check my citations (as Rowan Forest apparently feels), then what exactly do you propose to resolve this issue? A highly-technical article is served by highly-technical citations, not by assumption of high competence by editors who did not, will not, and maybe cannot check the citations given.

If you think the solution is for me to educate all current and lurking WP editors, I feel I have already done so by providing more than ample citations. That's the point of literature search, avoidance of duplicated effort. I do not feel it is my responsibility to rewrite papers for the convenience of all current and lurking- I had already begun doing this, and Rowan Forest won't grasp that, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.100.100 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - seems best to add these comments to the "Talk:101955 Bennu" talk-page - in order - to sort out the related issues about the "101955 Bennu" article - and - to find an agreeable way to improve the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Parentage (academic or literal) of CI and CM meteorites is relevant, well-cited, and reliably so, by multiple OSIRIS-REx scientists. Yet Rowan Forest deleted it anyway. So, too, are the storage mechanisms within those meteorites, which brings up a deeper issue:

"The asteroid could potentially be mined to process the phyllosilicate into water." -Rowan Forest

Scientists don't turn to Arguments from consequences for a very simple reason... they're scientists, not engineers, prospectors, etc. The field is interested in process and system, origin and history. Dante threw out the "mining" quip in the Dec. 10 press conference because he's an engaging public speaker, better than most would expect from a scientist, and better than most situations demand; we thank him for it. Yet Dante posted "water-rich" in that same press conference, in writing, left up for the world to see, just as Beth Clark gets it in her Dec. 13 interview. Water that is exposed to the Sun (and therefore, to telescopes) is photolyzed to -OH by Solar UV, far stronger than terrestrial UV. This is a fundamental principle of the inner Solar System; I shouldn't need to cite it, but I can if necessary. Hence, Beth Clark refers to water, via visible -OH; no water has been nor should be expected at this point. Only upon sample return (as OREx doesn't have Haya2's SCIM) would water be clearly visible- in situ, not in telescopes. I have already explained as much as I need to; if this still isn't comprehensible, I am no longer responsible for lack of comprehension.

And yes, phyllosilicates contain water. CIs are ~40-45% saponite (Ca0.25(Mg,Fe)3((Si,Al)4O10)(OH)2·n(H2O)); CMs contain far less saponite but minor gypsum/basanite (CaSO4·xH2O) and vermiculite (·4H2O). The requirement for water to be some sort of liquid or fluid was a complete surprise to me when I came upon it- in WP only, which means it's been conjured by editors. Again, the utility of the water is not the task of scientists, but left to others. However, if it's liquid or fluid you want, meteorites demonstrate that too- in mesoporous/nanoporous fluids and adhered water. Yet Rowan Forest deleted that cited addition, too. 64.134.100.100 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If the requirement for to water be be some sort of liquid was a complete surprise to you, then you shouldn't be writing an encyclopedia for a general audience. Let's take a highly rated answer on "Physics Stackexchange: Why does ice melting not change the water level in a container?"; "Consider the following diagram, in which part1 and part2 represent the ice. ... Now look at what happens when both part1 and part2 melt: 1. their mass does not change, it is (part1+part2) 2.it becomes water." (Emphasis mine.) Nobody on the page says that ice melting can change the water level in a container; if you fill a cup to the top with ice, the frozen water will be at the top of the cup, and will no longer be at the top of the cup when melted.

And even while water as referring to steam and ice is well-understood, gypsum is not generally understood as being part water. If you walk out of a museum room with Nottingham alabaster, and tell the curator that the walls were covered with such pretty water, after the panic subsided, I doubt you'd get a chance to explain, or that anyone would find that appropriate behavior.

Articles like 101955 Bennu are more challenging than articles like Lie algebra, because while the latter is hopeless to explain to anyone without deep subject knowledge and probably of no interest to most of them, Bennu is a rock in space that people read about in the New York Times and might want to know more about. The question is, how do we convey what is known about Bennu to the wide audience reading this page in a way they will correctly understand it? (And I feel like I'm piling on, but again, this is not a skill that scientists necessarily learn or are any good at.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

My HEAVENS, the notion that terrestrial definitions define cosmochemistry is just staggering. Why don't YOU try the history and discovery of forbidden states, and tell me the cosmos was forbidden because we said it was.

The use of the museum metaphor is particularly apt in this situation, as multiple early meteoriticists believed the carbonaceous chondrite samples submitted for their review were coal, clay, etc. as part of some joke. The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine- J._B._S._Haldane Don't tell us your expectations for the cosmos were not met, thus not true. That's 'us', as in me and multiple OSIRIS-REx staff, and some (known and unknown) peer reviewers. Like my IP address, WP won't accept those as article references, so I'm resorting to what ARE good references. See below.64.134.100.100 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't care to define cosmochemistry. The languages of many subjects is literally not English; that is not a reason to write articles on Middle Chinese history in Chinese instead of English. In this case, if cosmochemistry uses definitions that most English speakers would find alien and confusing, then it constitutes a dialect of English that we should be avoiding in an article of general interest on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's try this for comprehension: WP:NOTJOURNAL & Academic language sections. A link to "hydrates" (like this: Mineral hydration) is more than enough, we do not need a extensive thesis on them shoved into an article about an asteroid. If the reader wants to learn about hydrated minerals (or about phyllosilicate in particular, they click on that link. Tha is how it works around here. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

YOU need to grasp that not only do you need to realize that asteroids can be mined, but that the academic community in these fields can yield the opposite stance from your clear outsider status:

"Water in chondrites is contained within clay minerals, with H2O accounting for up to 10% weight percent...water is also stored in chondrites in direct liquid form as inclusions" Russell S, Ballentine C, Grady M Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences Apr 2017, Review Issue: Introduction, The origin, history and role of water in the evolution of the inner Solar System

Bunch T Chang S 1980 Carbonaceous chondrites-II. Carbonaceous chondrite phyllosilicates and light element geochemistry Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.44 p.1543 "the water in the hydrous matrices of CI and CM meteorites"

Feierberg M Lebofsky L Larsen H, 1981 Spectroscopic evidence for aqueous alteration products on the surfaces of low-albedo asteroids, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v.45 p.971 "hydrated minerals in carbonaceous chondrites confirms that water has long-term stability on asteroidal bodies" "presence of adsorbed water in surface material"

"The presence of water (in hydrated phyllosilicates) on most C asteroids" Feierberg M Lebofsky L Tholen D 1985 The nature of C-class asteroids from 3u spectrophotometry, Icarus v.63 p.191

Gaffey M Bell J Cruikshank D 1989 Reflectance spectroscopy and asteroid surface mineralogy, section Water, p. 98, in Asteroids II, Binzel Gehrels Matthews eds. University of Arizona Press ISBN 978-0816511235

Rivkin A, Howell E, Lebofsky L, Clark B, Britt D, 2000 The nature of M-class asteroids from 3-u observations, Section 4.1 Estimates of Water Contents, Icarus v.189 p.550

Sears D, The Origin of Chondrules and Chondrites, p. 22 "Water can be detected in asteroids from the strength of the 3um absorption feature (Table 2.3). As expected, water has been detected in one-third to one-half of the C and related B asteroids which are expected to be CI-like in composition..." p.119 "~20 vol.% water like CI chondrites" p.139 "they must also contain considerable amounts of water, either as water-ice or as water of hydration. In fact, spectroscopic evidence for water has been found on a large number of asteroids." 2004 Cambridge U. Press, ISBN 978-1107402850

Cernicharo J Crovisier J Aug 2005 Water in Space: The Water World of ISO Space Science Reviews v.119 p.29 "in meteorites"

Don't tell us we are all doing our jobs wrong.64.134.100.100 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I have dealt with a couple of experts going through a certain article with a magnifying glass and going on forever with their pointy issues. This worked in the past: I offer you a wide-angle telescope into Wikipedia's style and conventions, where you find a Manual of Style, which addresses WP:UNDUE (a.k.a: the length : weight ratio of the text being introduced). We simply cannot write half a page specifically for a very technical audience on the crystallography of various hydrates, the various chemical forces splitting the water and binding them to the minerals, and how they formed in the presence of ancient water. Then we proceed like this: The reports state that there are "hydrates" on Bennu, not "free water" (H₂O not in chemical combination with mineral matter), so the "hydrates" word gets an intralink to the Wikipedia "hydrates" page, like this: hydrates. Such intralink is a standard procedure in Wikipedia, and contrary to your grievances, it is not portrayed as the reference or source. If the reader desires, they will press the intralink to that Wikipedia article, click on the references at the end of the sentence, or continue reading about asteroid Bennu. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this valuable edit serves well. Thank you. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

At what point do you think our jobs are contingent on your approval? 65.74.234.146 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You have nothing to offer:

"and hinges on that for his extensive WP:synthesis so that magically, asteroid Bennu became "water rich" comet Bennu."

Gee, that would naturally follow from: 7 Hergenrother, Carl W; Maria Antonietta Barucci; Barnouin, Olivier; Bierhaus, Beau; Binzel, Richard P; Bottke, William F; Chesley, Steve; Clark, Ben C; Clark, Beth E; Cloutis, Ed; Christian Drouet d'Aubigny; Delbo, Marco; Emery, Josh; Gaskell, Bob; Howell, Ellen; Keller, Lindsay; Kelley, Michael; Marshall, John; Michel, Patrick; Nolan, Michael; Rizk, Bashar; Scheeres, Dan; Takir, Driss; Vokrouhlický, David D; Beshore, Ed; Lauretta, Dante S (2018). "Unusual polarimetric properties of (101955) Bennu: similarities with F-class asteroids and cometary bodies". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters. 481: L49–L53. arXiv:1808.07812. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly156. and Maltagliati L. Cometary Bennu? Nature Astronomy 24 Sep 2018 |v.2 p.761 doi=10.1038/s41550-018-0599-5 I figured you didn't have employer or institutional access to Nature Astronomy; it now appears you didn't have a personal account, nor a one-article payment, because you clearly knew everything already.

Nor can you offer any experience with IAU Resolution B5 of 200 (https://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf), in which "small solar system body" is defined to eliminate the asteroid-comet distinction... because the distinction is arbitrary and manmade. Your notion of the Solar System is, thus, dated, to pre-2005.

Oh, wait. You have, to offer, denial, distraction, and delay. And in this specific situation, dissembling.64.134.100.53 (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Blow your nose and have a nap. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"We think Bennu is a water-rich asteroid" -Dante Lauretta Jan 9 2014

"water-rich" -Dante Lauretta Dec 10 2018

"water-rich asteroid" -Dante Lauretta Sep 25 2019

"the infrared instruments on approach to Bennu revealed a remarkably water-rich surface" Nuth, Abreu, et al 2020

"Bennu regolith samples should contain some level of adsorbed water" ibid.

This discussion is over. 65.74.234.146 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Visibility

In 2060 and 2135, can Bennu be seen with the naked eye and/or with binoculars and will it look like an asteroid? 212.186.0.174 (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

On 2060-Sep-21 Bennu will peak around magnitude 12.3 and will be too faint for common binoculars. -- Kheider (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding it into the page. 212.186.0.174 (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong dimensions in table

An object with the dimensions of the table is incompatible with the stated radii. How can it be of 282.37 × 268.05 × 249.25±0.06 meters and, at the same time, have an equatorial radius of 282.37±0.06 m and a polar radius of 249.25±0.06 m? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.30.106 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Casual editors have tendency to incorrectly use the values interchangeably. -- Kheider (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Risk-listed vs PHA

Risk-listed asteroids are asteroids with KNOWN potential impact dates as listed at Sentry and esa. Potentially hazardous asteroids are (for the majority of objects) a generic category of asteroids that could evolve to be a threat to Earth over next Millennium or so. -- Kheider (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you for explaining! --Yarnalgo _talk 16:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

File:BennuAsteroid.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:BennuAsteroid.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 20, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-20. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

101955 Bennu is a carbonaceous asteroid discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research project in 1999. Bennu has a roughly spheroidal shape, an effective diameter of about 484 m (1,588 ft), and a rough, boulder-strewn surface. It is a potentially hazardous object, with a cumulative 1-in-2,700 chance of impacting Earth between 2175 and 2199. It is named after the Bennu, an ancient Egyptian bird deity associated with the Sun, creation, and rebirth. This mosaic image of Bennu consists of twelve PolyCam images taken by NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft from a range of 24 km (15 mi). The primary goal of the mission is to collect a sample from the asteroid's surface, which is scheduled to take place on October 20, 2020, and return the sample to Earth for analysis.

Photograph credit: NASA / OSIRIS-REx

Recently featured:

• Tsjuder
• Trichoglottis atropurpurea
• Surrender of General Burgoyne

Add discussion of designing mission for sandy surface, but finding surprisingly rocky surface based on thermal inertia signature

Today on NASA TV during the TAG sample-gathering,they said something about being completely surprised by the rocky surface of Bennu, when the thermal signature from Earth made them think it was sandy. I expected details here, but see none offhand. What's the story? It includes both scientific learnings, and a great recovery by NASA. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Orbit?

Concerning the "Animation of 101955 Bennu's orbit around Earth 2128–2138". Doesn't that seem to indicate that Bennu orbits the Earth, thus making it a moon of the Earth? Should it read "101955 Bennu's orbit relative to the Earth"? 2601:280:4900:54F0:8CDB:BE7E:76E2:327A (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Rather than start a new section, I'll post my question here. From this layman's perspective, when I read that the latest mission's spacecraft had been "orbiting" the asteroid, and then I read it's something like 500 meters in diameter, my again layman's understanding of orbiting means that the speed of the spacecraft is in balance with the gravity of the object it is orbiting. But then it seems to me that a 500 meter asteroid isn't going to have any gravity at all, so then how does a spacecraft "orbit" it? So I came to this Wikipedia Article to get some sense, and did not see any mention of the asteroid's gravity and/or how a spacecraft might orbit it, or if that is even the correct term to describe what the spacecraft did. If possible, please try to improve the article so that there is some explanation as to how a spacecraft can "orbit" an object in space that has almost no gravitational pull. Or does it. Thanks in advance.68.206.249.124 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The asteroid does have gravity. It's just very weak. As it says in the infobox at the top right of the page, the surface gravity is ~6 micro-g's (roughly a million times weaker than Earth's gravity). The spacecraft orbits just like any other spacecraft in orbit around any other body, it just goes very very slow to stay in orbit. Its orbital speeds are on the order of ~10 cm/s. This info doesn't really belong on this article though since this is just about the asteroid. The OSIRIS-REx article does contain details about the orbit. --Yarnalgo _talk 01:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)