Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wolpfack t1_j0d4gx1 wrote

A meteorite is a solid piece of debris from an object, such as a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid, that originates in outer space and survives its passage through the atmosphere to reach the surface of a planet or moon.

Since whatever hit the Russian spacecraft was in orbit, e.g. not on the surface of a planet or moon, it was a meteoroid. Meteoroids are objects in space that range in size from dust grains to small asteroids. Think of them as “space rocks."

Try again, AP.

16

continuousQ t1_j0dvk1b wrote

Or you could say a meteorite is anything that makes an impact. The Moon doesn't have much of an atmosphere, but it does have a surface.

8

azdood85 t1_j0deigz wrote

We have to dumb down terminalogy and definitions because the average moron reading these articles cant take the extra effort to educate themselves with a simple search.

At least thats what keeps getting repeated to me whenever I point out an issue.

−9

MartianSands t1_j0dkpsa wrote

I think terminology like this is often pedantry for pedantrys sake. It's not at all clear to me that it actually adds anything of value to the language in this case, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to stop making the distinction

14

BBsmoothLSD t1_j0ecavv wrote

It’s only useful in its related fields. It doesn’t add any meaning for the average reader and also no one would notice or care regardless of whether they used the correct term or no

5

russmbiz t1_j0goxjs wrote

I don't even think it's useful in related fields. Whether you pick the right word or not when talking about a rock hitting a spacecraft adds nothing of value. It was hit while in space. There's plenty of context to know that's the case.

2

xeneks t1_j0dyir8 wrote

If you don’t use the appropriate word in context, people won’t learn to use it.

−3

nhomewarrior t1_j0gkgk9 wrote

That is literally something only an idiot would say. I could care less.

1