Talk:90482 Orcus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Mass listing
Added missing "." in Mass listing on table. Abyssoft 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diameter
From “IAU's Planet Definition” Questions & Answers Sheet:[1]
(90482) Orcus 1000±200 km [Brown, Binzel, private communication (2006)]
It may be much smaller than thought.--JyriL talk 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So what's up with the listed dimensions for Orcus?: "946.3+74.1-72.3 km.", it looks like it could be formatted better. I'll leave the correction for someone who knows better. HunterTruth (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources / possible satellite
I do not believe that we should use proposals as references. After all, if an astronomer wants to get a grant/telescope time etc. he could mention the possibility that the object is … inhabited. I feel we should keep with the usual sources. Let Mr Brown publish first. Eurocommuter 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a good example of intriguing information that could mentioned on the talk page. Suggestive/speculative information doesn't belong to article itself.--JyriL talk 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't help but think it is a bit outrageous to suggest that Mr. Brown lied about something so important to his work just to get telescope time. JamesFox 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- This was certainly not my point! My point was that with Google one can find many documents and not all of them should be used as references. Astronomers have data /hypothesis they want to test. They decide what and when to publish. I simply belive that we should let them to do so and then report it. My apologies, if my comment was read otherwise.Eurocommuter 10:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Except that from the proposal, I get the impression that the satellite of Orcus is regarded as fact by Michael Brown (just not announced), due to the phrasing used, and that the telescope time was to get data necessary to compute the orbital period, not to confirm the existance of the satellite. JamesFox 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but he hasn't published any evidence to prove a satellite. If there is one, he'll publish when he's ready. I'm sure he himself would rather confirm it first, rather than have his funding proposals used as evidence. The Singing Badger 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Except that from the proposal, I get the impression that the satellite of Orcus is regarded as fact by Michael Brown (just not announced), due to the phrasing used, and that the telescope time was to get data necessary to compute the orbital period, not to confirm the existance of the satellite. JamesFox 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- This was certainly not my point! My point was that with Google one can find many documents and not all of them should be used as references. Astronomers have data /hypothesis they want to test. They decide what and when to publish. I simply belive that we should let them to do so and then report it. My apologies, if my comment was read otherwise.Eurocommuter 10:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The discovery of a satellite for Orcus has been published in IAUC 8812, but I haven't actually seen the circular, so I have no details. RandomCritic 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to track down info as well, but met with the same problem. Is the existence of this page, with the heading "Recently Discovered Natural Satellites and Rings of Major and Minor Planets" and the text "Satellites of 2003 AZ_84, (50000) Quaoar, (55637) 2002 UX_25, and (90482) Orcus. IAUC 8812, 2007 Feb. 22" enough to warrant a mention? Something like "An IAU circular dated 22 February 2007 announced the discovery of satellites for Quaoar and Orcus"? Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Albedo
this change in the Albedo does not make sense. It is way too high' and I could not find any sources for it. I am changing back to the 0.09 value. Chagai 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- It says right in the text that observations from the Spitzer Space Telescope were used to derive a size, which can the be used to get a value for the albedo, which is given in the text as ~20%. I'm going to revert. JamesFox 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- We need a source, and a good one. this source is reliable, and support 0.09. If you are familiar with the term Albedo, you know that 20% is impossible! Its like a mirror, which "90482 Orcus" is not. Look at the values of other Trans-Neptun objects. They don't even come close. Chagai 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- See also Bond albedo. All values are fractions. You are just putting here wrong information. Chagai 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are many, many errors in your statements. I'll list at least most of them. 1) 20% is not an impossible amount, it is not close to being a mirror. 2) 20% is a fraction, it is the same as 0.2, just as 0.09 is the same as 9%. 3) Several known TNO's have albedos higher than 0.2, or 20%. Pluto has an estimated albedo of 0.49 to 0.66 (or between 49% and 66%), Eris' albedo is given as being around 86% (0.86). 4) There is a reference for the values determied by the Spitzer Space Telescope, look at reference 1. 5) The 0.09 value should nor be considered better, since if you look at the sources, it is clear that that Albedo was simply assumed, back in the days when Astronomers thought that TNO's would have low albedos. JamesFox 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- See also Bond albedo. All values are fractions. You are just putting here wrong information. Chagai 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- We need a source, and a good one. this source is reliable, and support 0.09. If you are familiar with the term Albedo, you know that 20% is impossible! Its like a mirror, which "90482 Orcus" is not. Look at the values of other Trans-Neptun objects. They don't even come close. Chagai 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
