Talk:(55636) 2002 TX300

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon (55636) 2002 TX300 is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

too technical[edit]

formerly { { technical } } OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the same reader who inserted this tag did not tag elliptic integral for example. This article does not go beyond school-level physics. Many articles on wikipedia are, quite rightly, technical. Otherwise nothing to learn, no reason to visit.

What do agree with is that many background articles on planetary science are missing and the existing ones often do not cover the subject from the perspective of the small bodies. I believe this is not a reason to degrade the technical articles (thousands of popular science sites exist already) but a reason to (re-)write a few background articles. Eurocommuter 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well, consider this. "(55636) 2002 TX300 is a large Haumeid discovered in October 15, 2002 by the NEAT program. A Classical Kuiper Belt object with the absolute magnitude between that of (50000) Quaoar and (20000) Varuna, 2002 TX300 has the most eccentric and inclined orbit of the three." that's the first two paragraphs. Here's some lay questions those two paragraphs don't answer:

  • what the heck is it? a star? dust cloud? planet? chunk of ice? comet? undersea object? ancient temple found in the jungles of Burma? Virus that infects African elephants? it only hints that it's an astronomical object.
  • whats a haumeid? I have a physics degree and I never heard of it.
  • the NEAT program - does that run in prime time on CNN?
  • classical Kuiper belt - a violin sonata? made of leather?
  • Friends can be 'eccentric', can be 'inclined' to drink, and to hang out in the 'orbit' of someone else.

yes probably 'elliptic integral' should be more simply explained too. ok lets see if I can make an intro paragraph. After looking up haumeid.

there. just one sentence really. On to Elliptic Integral. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Size References![edit]

The size given in the text is different from the size given in the sidebar. Furthurmore, the 857 km figure comes from assuming an albedo of 0.09. Assuming albedos does not really give good results, so I think that the 857 should be replaced with a size range. JamesFox 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the diameter to a range of 530 - 709. I set the lower range to 530km for absolute magnitude (H) 3.5 and albedo 0.25. Looking at this plot, most TNOs under 1000km appear to have albedos lower than 0.25. -- Kheider 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Given the identification of this object with EL61's family, it's albedo is likely much higher than 0.25 - figure .5 - .8 or so. Not sure if Ragozzine's paper is explicit about this, but a more reasonable guess for the diameter is ~400km WilyD 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the abs mag from 3.3 to 3.09 and gave an estimated lower limit of 470km (assuming an albedo close to 0.50). For such as small object an albedo of 0.8 seems very uncommon. -- Kheider (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Intentional template or error?[edit]

That the top header declaration is that the article's name is Downsize, is it intentional (and a template has since been changed) or some other weird cause? Could someone with expertise explain? MURGH disc. 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for fixing it, even if it didn't merit a reply. Altering {{downsize |{{mp|(55636) 2002 TX|300}} }} to {{downsize |title={{mp|(55636) 2002 TX|300}} }} Made all the difference. MURGH disc. 07:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotion[edit]

There is nothing here about it's possiblity to be promoted to a dwarf planet. Arkkeeper (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious?[edit]

The statement about small light-curve-amplitude variations doesn't say that is a dwarf planet, but that this suggests it could be a spheroiddwarf planet. Since we don't know when icy bodies become spherical, only that this is expected to happen somewhere between 200–400 km, how is this statement dubious, even taking the stellar-occultation result of 286 km? --JorisvS (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the amplitude of rotational lightcurve does tell us much this body. It all depends on the rotational pole position, which is unknown. Ruslik_Zero 17:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read my first sentence first. --JorisvS (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Body of any size can be spherical, simply by chance. Ruslik_Zero 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You're still not adressing what I'm saying. --JorisvS (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
and can be considered a dwarf planet if it is 450km in diameter or larger. As Ruslik points out, it is not that large. -- Kheider (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable reference that editors on Wikipedia take TX300 to be a serious dwarf planet candidate? -- Kheider (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tancredi (2010) accepts it as a DP, but Brown postdates that and only lists it as "possible", that is, only a DP if it's bigger than estimated or if there is some other reason it would be round despite being below what we think is the minimal size for an icy body. Tancredi was working with an estimated diameter of 800km, whereas by the time Brown posted, it was est. 374km. The occultation that measurement was based on postdates Tancredi, which was submitted in 2009. I would say that this is therefore no longer a serious candidate, and would recommend updating the lead to reflect that. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It could be a dp, but recent size estimates of ~300km obviously cast serious doubts about it's confidence. It is a weak (possible) dwarf-planet candidate as are the centaurs 10199 Chariklo, 2060 Chiron, and 54598 Bienor. (The Dwarf Planets Headquarters still shows a size estimate of 478km.) -- Kheider (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)