Talk:(84522) 2002 TC302 - Misplaced Pages

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Is there's any "name" for this objet?

Just like Easter-Bunny, Santa, Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, Ixion, Varuna, etc... Ceres has got a name and this object has got just a number, while its size is superior than the size of Ceres...

Size Estimate?

This article, and several external references circa 2003, say TC302 is about 1000km in diameter. However, Michael E. Brown's web site lists it as only 710km. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/whatsaplanet/howmanplanets.html The IAU lists its magnitude as 3.9, which implies a diameter between 400 and 1000km. http://ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/kb.html Frankie

Looking at this plot, most TNOs under 1000km appear to have albedos lower than 0.25. Kheider 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanberry at al (Spitzer) show estimated 1145 km (−325 +337)! Eurocommuter 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Resonant object

We do not have as today resonant TNO article (only the re-direct from the twotinos), so the link to the mean motion resonance is temporary. Resonant objects are classified separately in following the new definitions of TNO (elltio 2006) i.e. they are not KBO and they are not SDO (see scattered disk). Eurocommuter 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, stubbed resonant Trans-Neptunian Object in spite of the late hour. Eurocommuter 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Generic computer generated images

Do we really want to start using high resolution false images generically generated by Celestia that suggest we known far more about any object than we do? Even Pluto is rendered (known) at a lower resolution. And if we are going to use false advertising we should at least limit them to 180px. For now I have removed the image as too misleading since it doesn't even demonstrate a size comparison between 2 objects. -- Kheider (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm late responding to this, but it's still going on. I agree with Kheider. I prefer a real photographic dot to artistic works, except maybe in a few cases where the art displays an uncommon characteristic, such as Haumea's shape or the relative sizes of Orcus/Vanth. Even then I would prefer a diagram, so the reader doesn't have to do a double-take to see that it's not real. Tbayboy (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Celestia generically makes almost all the dwarf planet candidates look like File:YE7_Celestia_Bright.jpg and File:TC302_Celestia.jpg. The images at celestiamotherlode are pretty, but could be misleading if not used for a good reason. As an example, 2009 YE7 probably is not spherical. -- Kheider (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/~cgi/ReturnPrepEph?d=d&o=84522
- In (84522) 2002 TC302 on 2011-05-20 21:19:02, 404 Not Found
- In (84522) 2002 TC302 on 2011-05-31 04:16:31, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

New paper covering stellar occultation

Need to wait for it to get through peer review mind and it has really rather a lot of authors:

Categories: