21–30 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tracked as debris and not an asteroid. It was deleted because it's already tracked
So the takeaway I get is that these two databases should be cross linked so this doesn’t happen again. Maybe there’s a community of software developers who could help.
I'm not sure I buy into the sensationalism behind this story. We're tracking billions[0] of asteroids in interplanetary space, and you say that it's a data-processing hazard that the half-dozen or so deep-space anthropogenic objects aren't submitted to a mandatory international database for de-confliction? That doesn't pass the smell test. [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/01/01/1108643/vera-c-r...
> I'm not sure I buy into the sensationalism behind this story It does seem odd there is an entire article about a single mislabeled-and-then-caught object in a large database that probably has many mislabeled objects that have never been caught. The position of the object is well documented [1] [2]. It surprises me that there are not some very basic checks done on new objects against other databases. All that said,…
There's an entire belt of them in orbit around the sun between Mars and Jupiter.
Yet another case of astronomer entitlement. You don't own the universe, astronomers.
/dash/
Seems like an odd move to just delete it. Is it any less worthy of being tracked because it's man made? Wouldn't adding it to the database at least reduce the chance of the same mistake being made again by other astronomers? Isn't this, like other space junk in such orbits, effectively an "anthropogenic asteroid"? Why not just add them in with a special tag or naming convention to indicate that they're man-made?
I assume it's being tracked elsewhere. But not here.
Can someone explain why in 2025 they discover an asteroid which gets designated as "2018" and then they delete it when it turns out that it was an object launched in space precisely in 2018?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the takeaway I get is that these two databases should be cross linked so this doesn’t happen again. Maybe there’s a community of software developers who could help.
If only there were some sort of article explaining the need for transparency between organizations regarding these things.
Seems like an odd move to just delete it. Is it any less worthy of being tracked because it's man made? Wouldn't adding it to the database at least reduce the chance of the same mistake being made again by other astronomers? Isn't this, like other space junk in such orbits, effectively an "anthropogenic asteroid"? Why not just add them in with a special tag or naming convention to indicate that they're man-made?
It's being tracked, but not by the "Minor Planet Center".
It's just not being published on a certain curated list by the MPC.
[flagged]
> announced the discovery of an unusual asteroid, designated 2018 CN41 Can someone explain why in 2025 they discover an asteroid which gets designated as "2018" and then they delete it when it turns out that it was an object launched in space precisely in 2018?
It's initially given a temporary name prior to the now official name.
2018 CN41
Means it's the 41st object identified in the first half of February in 2018.
A is first half of jan. B is 2nd half. Etc.. then the iteration in that section