Talk:(136472) 2005 FY9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

Contents

[edit] Mean orbital speed

I've calculated the object's mean orbital speed from its perihelion and aphelion, using the formula at User:Pt/Formulae. — Pt (T) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend not to take the current values too seriously, because they're still changing daily as new precovery images are found. For example, the absolute magnitude of 2005 FY9 was first reported being 0.1, day after -0.4, then back to 0.1, then 0.3; today (August 2th) it's 0.0. Current orbital values are from the discovery MPEC. Mean orbital distance has changed from 45.6397027 to 45.73950 and so on. --Jyril 14:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
You could easily have used Ramanujan's approximation for the ellipse's circumference; unless the eccentricity is very large, its precision is close enough that it does not matter (exercise: at which e does Ramanujan's approximation error exceed the precision of the astronomical unit?). Urhixidur 14:04, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Of course I could, but the more precise formulae were just shorter to type into my computer. :) And I agree that the speed should be recalculated as the source data change. — Pt (T) 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Diameter Range For 2005 FY9

Providing the absolute magnitude of 2005 FY9 is -0.3 as described, then the object's diameter range is quite impressive. If 2005 FY9 reflects 100% the light it receives (highly unlikely), then it would have a diameter of ~1614 km. If the albedo is Pluto-like, or 59%, then 2005 FY9 would measure ~1986 km in diameter! J P 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Brown says it is about 3/4 the size of Pluto (according to him, it was detected by the Spitzer Space Telescope). [1] This would mean that its albedo is nearly 90%. I'd like to see a confirmation or refutal to this claim.--Jyril 19:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a 90% albedo would be something. I did come across a summary for an abstract (which is supposedly going to be available to the public soon) that stated 2005 FY9 is around 4/5 the diameter of Pluto, or around 1800 km across. This would give 2005 FY9 an albedo of 80%. Even this figure is hard to believe, but it's more likely than 90%. If 2005 FY9 is indeed 80% reflective, it would be nothing short of amazing! J P 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Current absolute magnitude is actually -0.4. It is very possible that it has a transient atmosphere like Pluto. Now it lies much further out from the Sun than Pluto, so its atmospheric gasses are frozen covering any darker terrain. That would explain its high albedo (as well as the high albedos of 2003 UB313 and 2003 EL61).--Jyril 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor planet number

2005 FY9's minor planet number is 136472.[2]--JyriL talk 15:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to (136472) 2005 FY9, as per naming of other unnamed objects with minor planet numbers Richard B 00:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

(Copy from 2003 El61)

I wonder whether this renaming adds any readability for the wider public. I believe we could wait for the name to add the number. My concerns:

  • Unlike 2000 Varuna for example, making the difference between a god and a TNO, the number adds no value for the provisional designation
  • There are tons of links in TNO articles; not only creating redirection and fixing the links represents an effort but forces future editors to look-up these numbers any time they link!

I believe that simple politeness would require such massive moves to be first announced and discussed on talk pages (or Project talk pages). Regards Eurocommuter 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small Body?!

  • Despite it is a candidate for Dwarf planet status, shouldn't we say it is a small body in the lead? --Pedro 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I'd recommend either dropping the imagemap in favor of a standard image or make the imagemap much bigger. I can't see didly in the small version on my screen, and I can't make it larger by clicking on it. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Any Developments on the choosing its name? Personally I think we need some east asian planets but what does my opinion matter. Anyway I was just wondering if IAU has come up with any ideas yet? Arkkeeper (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)