![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)