Talk:(89959) 2002 NT7

???

What object is this about? -- 62.171.194.42 (12:30, 3 March 2003‎)

About a near-Earth object. If you have a question about the article, could you be more specific? - Patrick 13:07 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Mind your language

This is a meteorite which was supposedly roughly in the way of the Earth's orbit... that's what it is on about... please keep language to a minimum (unsigned comment on 2006-07-16 by 82.47.215.11)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (89959) 2002 NT7. 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/20060405010848/http://www.planetary.org/news/2002/0725_Asteroid_2002_NT7_Under_Watch_But.html to http://www.planetary.org/news/2002/0725_Asteroid_2002_NT7_Under_Watch_But.html

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).

• 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) 13:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

two independent questions of date

"it has now been known for years" that it would pass harmlessly, hmmm. Better to replace that obsolete wording with, say, the date of the first accurate prediction.

Meanwhile, how did the projected nearest approach move from February 1 to January 13? —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The impact scenario on 1 Feb 2019 was NEVER the nominal solution, and reality became 13 Jan 2019. It took less than a month to rule out any impact scenario. -- Kheider (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)