Talk:1993 RP
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Are those parameters for real? edit
For example, Perihelion of 34 AU... plus or minus 550 AU? How does that even work? Anywhere from 584 AU, down to... er... minus 516 AU?
Wouldn't it be more sensible to note its orbital params as "unknown", and have a separate listing for estimated location at time of observation, as that's the only thing likely to be known with even the most minimal certainty? It's got an UP of 9 (the maximum), and the article page for Uncertainty Parameter says that higher numbers aren't specified because 9 already means a potential longitudinal variation of at least 41 degrees per decade (it's been 2.5 decades since it was observed, so that's plus/minus at least 103 degrees... basically it could be anywhere by now, as that covers nearly 2/3rds of an orbit at the minimum), and that a parameter of more than 9 would mean we have no idea at all where the object will be in the future. It could have a plutino-like orbit and be easy to recover if anyone actually looked for it, or it might actually have been a comet-like object following a much more eccentric orbit inbound or outbound, merely in Pluto's orbital zone at that moment by chance.
Funny, really. You'd think something as important - from a purely technical, human perspective at least - in the history of astronomy might have had a bit more of an effort made to recover/precover it and make a better estimate of its orbit... instead of noting it just 2 or 3 times on successive nights then losing (or ignoring) it completely... 146.199.0.203 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Every object has a nominal (best-fit) orbit solution even if the real orbit is basically unknown. One nightstands like 1993 RP generally have many orbits that fit the uncertainties in the very small dataset. In a nutshell when given a TNO with perihelion being listed as roughly ±∞, you know that the object could be a TNO/centaur or a much closer main belt asteroid ~10x smaller in diameter.
- If this object was part of a computer search, it is possible that object was found in the archives too late to recovery it. Surveys in 1993 were not nearly as good as they are now-a-days. If this object is a small main belt asteroid, it would have moved significantly in just a couple of nights. -- Kheider (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is finally recovered! Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)