Talk:65803 Didymos

Orbital Period

The article mentions a period of 11h but the sidebar lists 2years, Which one is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.76.23.216 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Both. One period is for the asteroid, the other for its moon. Rfassbind – talk 23:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 65803 Didymos. 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/20150607004851/http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/NEO/Asteroid_Impact_Deflection_Assessment_AIDA_study to http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/NEO/Asteroid_Impact_Deflection_Assessment_AIDA_study

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Change in orbital period around Sun

The orbital period of the secondary (Dimorphos) around the primary (Didymos) has changed. This may have a small change in the planetary close approach times, but will not be known until there are many months of observations. If this had been a real "save-the-world-moment", they would have targeted (moved) the primary body. -- Kheider (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The effectiveness of the impact does not depend on the mass of the target, Dimorphos or Didymos, but on the mass of the ejecta, which depends on the composition, density, and grain size of the target material. --Rainald62 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Arecibo radar images

"Images" is misleading, especially if mentioned in the same sentence with "Goldstone delay-Doppler echoes" (delay is visualized in y, Doppler shift in x direction). The Arecibo "images" are delay-Doppler, too. This is not only obvious from the images themselves (brightness peak at the top) but also from the insufficient angular resolution of the telescope: An image of the Moon with ~2 arcmin beam size would be 16 pixel in diameter. --Rainald62 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)