Talk:WT1190F

Update/ delete "Planet" infobox

Since the object has been determined to be space junk, the "Infobox planet" should be changed or removed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need to alter the infobox but suggest we wait for a week or so until it is confirmed & an image is available. -Ninney (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because it has a geocentric orbit does not mean you need to remove the infobox. -- Kheider (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So space junk is now defined as a planet and requires the Planet infobox. Brilliant insight. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If something has a known orbit, why not have an infobox? Removing the orbital parameters will not improve the article. Unless a fragment comes down on someone's home, I am pretty sure it will be better known for the 41-day re-entry orbit than for the bright fireball. -- Kheider (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this small part of junk is notable? It is just <100 kg junk piece; there were tens of such fragments from every moon mission. Why we should keep the separate article for this one? `a5b (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@A5b and BatteryIncluded: Previously it was thought to be a celestial object (now a Space Junk) & hence the article was created. The event on 13th November is notable & the article may be Redirected / Moved to say, 2015 Srilanka/Indian Ocean Impact event or 2015 Srilanka/Indian Ocean fireball & the infobox may changed to {{Infobox event}}. Hence, a separate article -Ninney (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think, that <100 kg object (1 m^3 of 0.1 g/cm^3; why there are no details of object mass?) will not give any noticeable impact (impact event is a collision between celestial objects causing measurable effects); and fireball will be rather small if it will be. So, most studied variant of object is the probable asteroid, seen by several telescopes, not the short reentry of small object. `a5b (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the article originally because it is only the third instance (as far as I know) of an object being discovered without prior knowledge of its existence, before impacting the Earth. Plus, it's made quite a splash in the media and astronomers alike. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is notable. As far as I know, it is the first man-made object to not have its whereabouts known for perhaps decades and then be detected before impact with the Earth. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I also thought it is not notable, but I came across this article by astronomer Phil Plait explaining the relevance: [1]. "That’s important: An object under the influence of nongravitational forces (like sunlight pressure) can have a difficult orbit to predict, so the more observations of it we have, the better we’ll understand just how these forces work on small objects." Perhaps it can be mentioned in Wikipedia too. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And also this: "Planetary astronomer Nick Moskovitz of Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff is one of many observers around the world helping to study object WT1190F. He told EarthSky:

   'This is one of the first times we have been able to predict, specifically, the time and location of reentry for a piece of space debris. With this information, astronomers will be able to point instruments to that location and study the reentry. Our data have helped to narrow down the point of reentry to a fairly small location out over the Indian Ocean, south of Sri Lanka.' " Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow NASTRO is getting harmfully nick-picky. Yes, this object is notable as it will impact the Earth and re-entry will be studied by well known astronomers such as Peter Jenniskens. It is also not 100% certain that this object is not an asteroid. So the question then becomes should the DoD/JSpOC and JPL be tracking such "unknown" objects? -- Kheider (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there are those on Wikipedia that just do not like space junk. -- Kheider (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Rained out?

The event was largely rained out with overcast skies and fake videos are spreading. I did see twitter comments that ranulnth and isuranirmal heard it. Looks like it is up to Team Petrus to get images. -- Kheider (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the cloud cover of the surrounding area? Is there anywhere on either Sri Lanka or India that it might have been visible? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Even Tangalle is coming back negative. Weather in Sri Lanka is bad and Southern India does not look much better. -- Kheider (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Hopefully the airborne observations have had better luck. Any updates on those? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This video claims to be uploaded by the Astronomy Center, but YouTube is too dubious and generic for me. Need to wait until something more official is posted. -- Kheider (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some people have been re-coloring the ATV-1 REENTRY (Jules Verne ATV) from 29 September 2008. -- Kheider (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hevXyi0520 and http://www.astronomycenter.net/image/Six_Images.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)