Talk:2000 EM26

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).

Untitled

Created talk page for 2000 EM26 article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo and Al Capone's vault.

It was reminiscent of Geraldo Rivera's live TV broadcast The Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults in 1986 when Rivera blasted open the supposed vault and there was nothing there. The "live coverage" of the pass-by was widely hyped, but the telescope was "iced up" and unable to provide images, so apparently all viewers saw was old video of previous asteroids, and some images of stars taken from Dubai, with no clear image of the 2000 EM26. The article said the Dubai images "will be used to confirm" the passing as if it were a certainty, and as if there were no other telescopes in the world. Seemed a bit promotional of the Slooh organization. Edison (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The asteroid basically has a poorly determined orbit (U=7). If the asteroid was near the nominal (best-fit) orbit it would have been about magnitude 16, but if the asteroid was near the outer uncertainty region it could have been 5 times further away and notable fainter. -- Kheider (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Way the 26 is Written

What is the meaning of writing the 26 lower than the EM? I've never seen that before.Robinrobin (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing this article by asserting that the asteroid's close-approach did in fact happen!!!

There has been no confirmation at all that this asteroid still exists or was anywhere near the earth on Feb 17, so claiming that the asteroid "safely passed by earth" is not an encylopedic statement when we do not even know if it was in a position to do so.

All statements in this article about the earth-passage of the asteroid need to be phrased in the context that the passage was anticipated, proposed, hypothesized, or theorized - and the passage can't actually be claimed to have happened (let alone that it happened "safely") until radar or photographic evidence is put forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.23.73 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually using JPL solution 10 (dated 2013-Nov-21) math tells us the close approach did happen. But if that is not good enough the asteroid was recovered in February 2017 further refining the close approaches. -- Kheider (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]