Talk:(120348) 2004 TY₃₆₄

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 Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
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 Low-importance).

"Other" TNO

What does Johnston mean with "Other TNO" exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he just means it does not easily fit into a single category of TNO. Classical and scattered both to seem to depend in-part on who is defining the term. Even some weak Resonant trans-Neptunian objects are not secure. -- Kheider (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In our case, we would simply list the different possibilities, of course, but it would not be so easy to do for Johnston's list, I'd say. What is Buie's definition for classicals? And are there other classifications in use that would place 2004 TY₃₆₄ in yet another category (if not, listing Johnston would be pointless, and if so, we'd better list those)? --JorisvS (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Deep Ecliptic Survey (DES) found no clear boundary between the Classical and Scattered classes. I am not aware of another listing for TNO categories. The MPC likes to call just about everything with q>6AU a "Distant object" now-a-days. -- Kheider (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice and vague of the MPC. Makes sense that there would not actually be any distinguishable boundary. Do I understand correctly from that paper that they only take cold classicals as "classicals" and all hot classicals as "scattered(–extended)"? --JorisvS (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know Buie moved the software to a new server a few years ago and I wonder if some gremlins are still in the software libraries. 90377 Sedna is coming up ScatNear and 20000 Varuna is coming up ScatExt. In other news, the MPC database calls centaur 52872 Okyrhoe (q=5.8) a main-belt object. -- Kheider (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes me wonder about other, unspotted mistakes in those. --JorisvS (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This paper discusses the DES classification. They call objects Scat-Near if their time-averaged Tisserand parameter with respect to Neptune is less than 3. The current Tisserand parameter of Sedna, using their formula, is approximately 0.3, which explains why Buie has it as scattered-near. I don't know what this tells us about Sedna's orbit, though. The DES classicals have e>0.2 and T_N>3. The latter can explain why high-inclination low-eccentricity KBOs may be classified as something other than classical. I can understand that inclination may have to be taken into account when identifying classicals, because otherwise scattered TNOs that had their orbits inclined by the Kozai mechanism, such as 2004 XR190, may end up being considered classicals. The situation with Sedna makes me wonder if T_N>3 is the best criterion, though. --JorisvS (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (120348) 2004 TY364. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]