SteveM
Jan 11 2008, 03:31 PM
Here's one more JPL Horizons ephemeris for 2007 WD5's pass over the Spirit Landing Site. In this version the range and range rate are in km and km/sec rather than in AU. As the asteroid passes overhead at 24-30,000 km it will be about ninth magnitude. Does anyone know if such a faint object would be a feasible target for Spirit's cameras (even if the power and temperature conditions were acceptable)?
Steve M
CODE
Target body name: (2007 WD5) {source: JPL#13}
Center body name: Mars (499) {source: DE405}
Center-site name: Spirit Landing Site (MER) / Gusev
******************************************************************
Start time : A.D. 2008-Jan-30 11:00:00.0000 UT
Stop time : A.D. 2008-Jan-30 16:00:00.0000 UT
Step-size : 10 minutes
******************************************************************
Target pole/equ : No model available
Target radii : (unavailable)
Center geodetic : -175.48330,-14.566677,-.0066762 {E-lon(deg),Lat(deg),Alt(km)}
Center cylindric: -175.48330,3288.23600,-844.4501 {E-lon(deg),Dxy(km),Dz(km)}
Center pole/equ : IAU_MARS {East-longitude -}
Center radii : 3396.2 x 3396.2 x 3376.2 km {Equator, meridian, pole}
Target primary : Sun {source: DE405}
Interfering body: PHOBOS (Req= 13.400) km {source: MAR063}
Deflecting body : Sun, MARS {source: DE405}
Deflecting GMs : 1.3271E+11, 4.2828E+04 km^3/s^2
Small perturbers: Ceres, Pallas, Vesta {source: SB405-CPV-2}
Small body GMs : 6.32E+01, 1.43E+01, 1.78E+01 km^3/s^2
Atmos refraction: NO (AIRLESS)
RA format : HMS
Time format : CAL
RTS-only print : NO
EOP file : eop.080109.p080401
EOP coverage : DATA-BASED 1962-JAN-20 TO 2008-JAN-09. PREDICTS-> 2008-MAR-31
Units conversion: 1 AU= 149597870.691 km, c= 299792.458 km/s, 1 day= 86400.0 s
Table cut-offs 1: Elevation (-90.0deg=NO ),Airmass n.a. , Daylight (NO )
Table cut-offs 2: Solar Elongation ( 0.0,180.0=NO )
*******************************************************************************
Initial FK5/J2000.0 heliocentric ecliptic osculating elements (AU, DAYS, DEG):
EPOCH= 2454453.5 ! 2007-Dec-19.00 (CT) Residual RMS= .19748
EC= .603018054551714 QR= 1.010175333097356 TP= 2454392.143492565
OM= 67.42386273883675 W= 312.82284512922 IN= 2.37739121318211
Asteroid physical parameters (KM, SEC, rotational period in hours):
GM= n.a. RAD= n.a. ROTPER= n.a.
H= 24.308 G= .150 B-V= n.a.
ALBEDO= n.a. STYP= n.a.
********************************************************************************
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A._(ICRF/J2000.0)_DEC Azi_(a-appr)_Elev APmag delta deldot L_Ap_SOL_Time
********************************************************************************
$$SOE
2008-Jan-30 11:00 17 35 28.31 -28 39 16.2 104.4087 -32.2166 n.a. 5.0892717819E+04 -11.2029689 02 15 53.6700
2008-Jan-30 11:10 17 14 18.72 -28 39 03.6 104.4425 -25.3692 n.a. 4.4311076783E+04 -10.6999279 02 25 37.7592
2008-Jan-30 11:20 16 46 05.05 -28 19 20.9 104.8366 -16.9852 n.a. 3.8108815355E+04 -9.9139691 02 35 21.8486
2008-Jan-30 11:30 16 07 58.95 -27 17 26.8 105.7380 -6.3778 n.a. 3.2509353860E+04 -8.6493924 02 45 05.9383
2008-Jan-30 11:40 r 15 17 15.33 -24 51 26.3 107.4310 7.2961 n.a. 2.7885074214E+04 -6.6071501 02 54 50.0281
2008-Jan-30 11:50 14 14 00.13 -20 06 55.7 110.5158 24.5101 10.50 2.4795608791E+04 -3.5079192 03 04 34.1182
2008-Jan-30 12:00 13 04 59.26 -12 53 50.7 116.4477 44.0536 9.54 2.3852394035E+04 0.4416623 03 14 18.2084
2008-Jan-30 12:10 12 01 23.59 -04 47 31.6 129.4788 62.2998 9.03 2.5301419991E+04 4.2764234 03 24 02.2990
2008-Jan-30 12:20 11 10 13.09 +02 11 28.1 162.4252 74.2606 8.86 2.8785660826E+04 7.1535750 03 33 46.3898
2008-Jan-30 12:30 t 10 31 43.87 +07 21 51.7 212.3312 74.6315 8.89 3.3679846689E+04 9.0159765 03 43 30.4808
2008-Jan-30 12:40 10 03 13.21 +11 00 26.9 237.6421 68.3862 9.01 3.9463030651E+04 10.1716770 03 53 14.5722
2008-Jan-30 12:50 09 41 51.82 +13 34 49.0 247.9167 61.6993 9.17 4.5799900008E+04 10.8990291 04 02 58.6638
2008-Jan-30 13:00 09 25 32.12 +15 26 24.7 252.8925 55.7130 9.34 5.2490600110E+04 11.3729441 04 12 42.7557
2008-Jan-30 13:10 09 12 46.27 +16 49 25.3 255.6343 50.4328 9.51 5.9416041015E+04 11.6938850 04 22 26.8479
2008-Jan-30 13:20 x 09 02 34.97 +17 52 54.5 257.2555 45.7183 9.68 6.6503237103E+04 11.9192712 04 32 10.9404
2008-Jan-30 13:30 x 08 54 17.82 +18 42 41.7 258.2409 41.4394 9.84 7.3705812518E+04 12.0827296 04 41 55.0332
2008-Jan-30 13:40 x 08 47 26.83 +19 22 36.4 258.8322 37.4958 9.99 8.0993208718E+04 12.2046180 04 51 39.1263
2008-Jan-30 13:50 x 08 41 42.20 +19 55 13.0 259.1619 33.8128 10.13 8.8344596219E+04 12.2976915 05 01 23.2198
2008-Jan-30 14:00 x 08 36 49.59 +20 22 18.5 259.3086 30.3356 10.26 9.5745334523E+04 12.3702049 05 11 07.3136
2008-Jan-30 14:10 x 08 32 38.44 +20 45 08.4 259.3213 27.0231 10.39 1.0318484544E+05 12.4276615 05 20 51.4077
2008-Jan-30 14:20 x 08 29 00.83 +21 04 37.6 259.2318 23.8444 10.51 1.1065529363E+05 12.4738296 05 30 35.5021
2008-Jan-30 14:30 x 08 25 50.68 +21 21 26.6 259.0616 20.7759 10.62 1.1815074368E+05 12.5113523 05 40 19.5969
2008-Jan-30 14:40 x 08 23 03.30 +21 36 05.9 258.8257 17.7992 10.73 1.2566660660E+05 12.5421234 05 50 03.6921
2008-Jan-30 14:50 x 08 20 34.98 +21 48 58.9 258.5342 14.9001 10.84 1.3319926719E+05 12.5675268 05 59 47.7875
2008-Jan-30 15:00 x 08 18 22.78 +22 00 23.7 258.1945 12.0673 10.93 1.4074582793E+05 12.5885914 06 09 31.8833
2008-Jan-30 15:10 *x 08 16 24.32 +22 10 34.6 257.8117 9.2917 11.03 1.4830392897E+05 12.6060945 06 19 15.9795
2008-Jan-30 15:20 *x 08 14 37.67 +22 19 42.9 257.3893 6.5661 11.12 1.5587161954E+05 12.6206319 06 29 00.0760
2008-Jan-30 15:30 *x 08 13 01.22 +22 27 57.9 256.9295 3.8846 11.21 1.6344726457E+05 12.6326666 06 38 44.1728
2008-Jan-30 15:40 *x 08 11 33.67 +22 35 27.1 256.4337 1.2424 11.29 1.7102947578E+05 12.6425630 06 48 28.2700
2008-Jan-30 15:50 *s 08 10 13.91 +22 42 16.5 255.9024 -1.3643 11.37 1.7861706012E+05 12.6506111 06 58 12.3676
2008-Jan-30 16:00 *x 08 09 01.00 +22 48 31.4 255.3354 -3.9386 11.45 1.8620898100E+05 12.6570443 07 07 56.4654
$$EOE
djellison
Jan 11 2008, 03:42 PM
QUOTE (SteveM @ Jan 11 2008, 03:31 PM)
Does anyone know if such a faint object would be a feasible target for Spirit's cameras (even if the power and temperature conditions were acceptable)?
Moving object, of 10th Mag? I'd say no.
http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...projects_2.htmlSpirit managed 6th Mag when looking at Orion a few years ago.
Doug
ustrax
Jan 11 2008, 04:07 PM
How come did I miss that
Sol 682 Early Morning Moons animation?!
That's one of my favourite Mars scenarios EVER!
SteveM
Jan 11 2008, 04:25 PM
QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 11 2008, 10:42 AM)
Moving object, of 10th Mag? I'd say no.
Doug,
Thanks for the link to the Cornell night time images. Even though the asteroid will get as bright as about 8.86 mag (+/- ?), I'd have to agree it would be hard to extract such a faint streak out of the noisy background.
Steve M
ugordan
Jan 11 2008, 04:26 PM
QUOTE (ustrax @ Jan 11 2008, 05:07 PM)
... Sol 682 Early Morning Moons ...
Wasn't that taken after dusk, Deimos is slowly descending while retrograde Phobos rises in the west?
PhilCo126
Jan 11 2008, 06:30 PM
Well, now NASA has put the odds 1 to 10000, some webpages start to mention asteroid TU24, which will pass "close" to Earth on 29th January 2008. However it will NOT Earth
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/01...rth-january-29/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/
slinted
Jan 12 2008, 08:20 AM
QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Jan 10 2008, 06:27 PM)
I was just curious if anyone could rule out this body entirely.
I think the moons are like Mars itself at this point, not a statistical 0, but rather just an extremely small chance. Closest Phobos approach to the nominal path is even further than Mars itself, about 34,499km. The closest the nominal will get to Deimos is 20,344 km (from
JPL Horizons).
And, just back-of-napkin'ing, Mars presents a 280,000 times larger 'target' to hit than Deimos (90,000 for Phobos)...so...not likely
tedstryk
Jan 14 2008, 12:31 AM
For stars, which trail much slower than a moving asteroid would, Spirit can see to 7th magnitude, so it wouldn't have a chance at a 9th magnitude object. If approach is closer, it would of course be possible. However, I am just looking at camera capability here, not power. If they had really precise ephemeris so that it could be observed in a session lasting just a few minutes and the flyby was only a few hundred kilometers, then I would hope that they would start really conserving power to charge that batteries for a session. However, given that in a best likely case (4,000 km) and given the margin of error, leading to a very limited return, plus the risk considering Spirit's limited power, unless predictions radically change and improve, it would not be worth it.
PhilCo126
Jan 24 2008, 06:56 PM
Hopefully we'll be able to spot the 29th January asteroid
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/?msource=01208&...mp;auid=3329949
tedstryk
Jan 26 2008, 02:09 AM
Hubble will be covering the 2007 WD5/Mars close approach. From the schedule:
11497 A6C Noll Observations of Mars and 2007 WD5
2008.030 10:54:00 11:05:00 1149705 Noll 05-001 MARS WFPC2 IMAGE PC1-FIX F410M 1.20 05 01 02
2008.030 10:54:00 11:05:00 1149705 Noll 05-002 MARS WFPC2 IMAGE PC1-FIX F502N 1.80 05 01 03
2008.030 10:54:00 11:05:00 1149705 Noll 05-003 MARS WFPC2 IMAGE PC1 F673N 0.40 05 01 04
By the fact that they are only using three filters (approximately RGB) and Kieth Noll who sets up Hubble Heritage observations, this is likely simply being done for the coolness factor.
climber
Jan 26 2008, 08:07 AM
QUOTE (PhilCo126 @ Jan 24 2008, 07:56 PM)
Hopefully we'll be able to spot the 29th January asteroid
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/?msource=01208&...mp;auid=3329949Alert !
That's not a fly by ! The Solar System is under attack !
rogelio
Jan 30 2008, 09:41 PM
It's "official", it missed Mars by 6.5 radii, see space.com:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080130-mars-miss.html...right next to an article entitled "NASA Spots Mysterious 'Spider' on Mercury...
ugordan
Jan 30 2008, 10:11 PM
QUOTE (rogelio @ Jan 30 2008, 10:41 PM)
It's "official", it missed Mars by 6.5 radii, see space.com:
"Space Rock Misses Mars, Barely"
Barely? 6.5 planet radii is hardly "barely"...
helvick
Jan 31 2008, 01:05 AM
I suppose whether it is "barely" or not depends on your perspective - that's about 22,000km or put it another way it's about as far as a geostationary satellite for us earthlings. I'd say that an asteroid coming that close to us would get called a very near miss even.
nprev
Jan 31 2008, 04:00 AM
Here's a
very near miss...(lot smaller rock, though).
edstrick
Jan 31 2008, 07:07 AM
"Here's a very near miss..."
<sigh> I WAS THERE at the time... In the vicinity of the Old Faithful visitor's center or driving around Yellowstone avoiding spot showers and grumbling at @#$#@ idiots who stop in the middle of the 2-lane road to take photos of the @#$# bears.
NO, I didn't see it. We found about it the next day in the paper's headlines. But I've been as close to an asteroid as they person who took that pic from east of the Grand Tetons.
nprev
Jan 31 2008, 02:11 PM
I was there, too, and outside up in Butte; heard the double sonic boom, looked up, saw this thing streaking across the sky...first thought was that it was an ICBM headed for Malmstrom AFB!
ugordan
Jan 31 2008, 02:22 PM
QUOTE (nprev @ Jan 31 2008, 03:11 PM)
heard the double sonic boom, looked up, saw this thing streaking across the sky
I never could quite figure out how you can hear the sonic boom while the object's still flying overhead? That had to be a pretty low pass. Say the meteor's flying at 3 km/s overhead at 20 km altitude. That's one minute before the sound hits you. By that time the object's travelled almost 200 km downrange (assuming level flight) so how can it be readily visible? It ought to be a mere 5 degrees in elevation at most at that time, far into the distance.
I'm not accounting for the deceleration here, but the 3 km/s velocity could be regarded as average and is not very high, implying significant breaking has already occured by the time it flies above your head.
tasp
Jan 31 2008, 03:39 PM
nprev:
thanx so very much for providing the 'classic' picture of the Jackson Lake Bolide I mentioned in my post in this thread 12/30. I neglected uploading the picture, and it certainly is an awsome thing to look at.
remcook
Jan 31 2008, 05:15 PM
ugordon - I think the shock wave that reaches you is actually created earlier and the shock wave itself moves quite quick horizontally. need to check though
tedstryk
Jan 31 2008, 08:25 PM
Whatever the explanation is, this is an area in which using those numbers would be sort of like using Thomas Gold's radar and infrared data to show that one couldn't land on the moon without sinking, even post Apollo. The result is a known - the existence of bolides is not controversial. In fact, I once experienced a large bolide that I would have missed, except that I heard it and looked up.
ugordan
Jan 31 2008, 08:31 PM
QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jan 31 2008, 09:25 PM)
The result is a known - the existence of bolides is not controversial. In fact, I once experienced a large bolide that I would have missed, except that I heard it and looked up.
I'm not denying that people have heard bolides (or the Space Shuttle reentering overhead for that matter), I'm just puzzled by how the sound can get to you almost simultaneously from a distant object.
djellison
Jan 31 2008, 09:09 PM
Ahh - I see the question. It's not a sound from the vehicle that gets to you - it's the shockwave passing you.
Imagine a car driving past you - with a massive long stick sticking out the window. The stick could hit you before the sound of the car. Sort of.
Bad analogy - but I think that's the point.
Doug
ugordan
Jan 31 2008, 09:19 PM
The problem with that is the "shockwave" is only a true shock (as in "really energetic") in front of the bolide, it quickly transitions to a regular acoustic wave (as it loses energy, it quickly slows down) travelling at the speed of sound. It's just that it has a peculiar shape - not concentric sound waves, but rather a sound front which is the thing making the loud boom. If you have a fast object, it will make a conical sound front (Mach cone) which will appear to drag behind it. The faster the object travels, the narrower the cone. While both the object and the cone appear to move rapidly forward, it's only the transverse velocity of the sound that gets to you. And that one, I *think* is the regular sound speed.
There's a nice web page showing some animations too:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/d...er/doppler.htmlNotice that, for supersonic shocks, the wave is still travelling outward at the speed of sound.
This is what makes hearing bolides so early counterintuitive to me. The most plausible explanation would be those things pass by a LOT nearer than I thought they do when you hear them.
helvick
Jan 31 2008, 11:00 PM
Your explanation makes perfect sense to me - if something is audible on the ground and visible then it can't be from something that is moving more or less overhead at multiple km/sec speeds _or_ it has to be very low. In this case perhaps it was much lower and smaller than we're assuming? If not then I wonder would it be possible for an obect with a fairly dense solid core but covered in rubble to shed the rubble right at the start of the "graze" and have that slow down and trail behind the dense core in such a way that certain points along the ground track could get the sound from the shock wave from the high speed core reaching the ground at the same time that the fireball from the slower debris was coming into view?
I saw a very bright bolide one night sometime in the early 80's. It was bright enough to cast noticable shadows and my very dodgy memory of it was that it took many seconds to pass. I was with a group of friends and we thought it had to be some sort of flare but we learned later that it was a meteor\bolide and had also been seen in the midlands (approximately 80 miles north of us). One thing that I am certain of was there was no sound from it certainly nothing as noticable as a sonic boom or even distant thunder.
nprev
Feb 1 2008, 02:10 AM
The 10 Aug 1972 object was apparently 5-10 m across, doing something like 10 km/sec relative to the Earth. Closest approach was 35 miles (56 km) over the Montana-Idaho border, or about 60 miles (96 km) west of where I was...and, let me tell you, that double boom was loud. IIRC, some windows in town were broken. F-106s used to cause booms fairly often back then, so I was familiar with that sound, but this was much, much more intense. (Just offering up an eyewitness account as data, here).
Apparently I wasn't the only one who initally thought this was an ICBM, either. I remember a local news story a few days afterward that said that NORAD was something like thirty seconds from making a launch decision, mostly because the ground track was coming uncomfortably close to some of the Malmstrom AFB Minuteman sites (they must have thought at first that it was a submarine launched missile)--brr. Significant & ultimately useful event in this context, though; think everyone can tell a meteor from a missile now.
EDIT: The best estimate I could find for the encounter velocity seems to be 14.7 km/sec, which makes sense; it was obviously above escape velocity. Also, sonic booms were only heard in Montana during C/A; critical altitude threshold for producing booms in Earth's atmosphere seems to be around 60 km.
mchan
Feb 1 2008, 07:13 AM
14.7 km/s would be something like a "rods from God" hypervelocity ICBM RV.
The track in the video I saw appeared roughly parallel to the horizon. An ICBM RV comes in a much steeper angle than say a shuttle re-entry track with one advantage being minimizing the time in the atmosphere for an endo-interceptor. Still, I might be having a "Depends" moment if I had been there and knowing that Malmstrom was right next door.
nprev
Feb 1 2008, 01:48 PM
QUOTE (mchan @ Jan 31 2008, 11:13 PM)
Still, I might be having a "Depends" moment if I had been there and knowing that Malmstrom was right next door.
I came close to that!
Actually, I was 9 years old at the time, and was with my 7-year old brother; we ran like hell home & got in the basement. When the world didn't blow up after half an hour or so, we came back up.
FYI, from my viewpoint the fireball & its track were at least 50 deg above the horizon (closer to the zenith than the horizon, anyhow) so it was not apparent that it wasn't on an impact trajectory.
remcook
Feb 1 2008, 05:50 PM
My point was that the shock you hear was made when it was over the horizon behind you. The shockwave then travels with the meteor until you see the meteor at the angle of the shockwave, so in front of you - I think.... does this make sense??
edit - even better - the object MUST be in your field of view when you hear a boom, just by the geometry of the shockwave (cone with moderate angles).
SteveM
Feb 1 2008, 11:56 PM
QUOTE (remcook @ Feb 1 2008, 12:50 PM)
My point was that the shock you hear was made when it was over the horizon behind you. The shockwave then travels with the meteor until you see the meteor at the angle of the shockwave, so in front of you - I think.... does this make sense??
edit - even better - the object MUST be in your field of view when you hear a boom, just by the geometry of the shockwave (cone with moderate angles).
It would be in your field of view, but almost to the horizon. At 14.7 km/sec entry velocity and a speed of sound of about 350 m/sec, the sides of the cone are almost parallel to the line of flight (the difference is only 1.4°). Looked at another way, when you hear the shock wave, the bolide is about 88.6° from the point of closest approach.
BTW, before anyone comments, I'm assuming sea level temperature and pressure here. I think that the shock front should refract to those conditions as it moves from the high altitude where it's generated to the region near sea level where it's heard. I'm ready to be corrected by anyone whose physics is more recent than mine.
Steve M
helvick
Feb 2 2008, 11:49 AM
Pedantic time again - the numbers don't make sense.
Assume that the meteor is "only" travelling at 11.1km/sec when it exits the atmosphere (ie it is just fast enough to escape at the end), anything faster than this will be even less likely to be seen\heard at the same time so this is a good number to base the argument on.
Assume that the "listener" is directly below the point of closest approach to the surface - this must be the point at which the shock will reach the ground soonest. If this was 56km it will take at least 165 seconds to reach the ground at which point in time the meteor will be (at least) 1700km downrange, although probably quite a lot more as it has been decelerating at some rate all the way to its exit velocity. Again the speed of sound is not constant at altitude but I used a sea level speed of 340m/sec here which is higher than the speed at sound throughout most of the atmosphere below 60km.
As it exits the atmosphere the object is at ~96km altitude and some distance downrange (this may or may not be under 1700km, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this exercise). The horizon distance at 96km is 1110km and this is the absolute maximum range from the point of exit that anything on the surface could see this object while it was still in the atmosphere. It's highly unlikely that anything that wasn't in the process of destroying the planet would actually be visible at that range through air but in any case the object's velocity means that it will be much further than this by the time anyone on the surface could has heard the shock wave from the primary object.
I'm not disputing that nprev and others both heard and saw something at the same time and that means that either ugordan's point applies (the point of closest approach has to be much lower for the numbers to work out) or there were secondary objects involved that trailed the primary by some considerable distance (hundreds of km by the time of closest approach).
tedstryk
Feb 2 2008, 02:01 PM
I know a Swedish team once succeeded in recording the sounds, though I have never heard the recordings. One popular explanation is that the sounds are actually a result of Very Long Frequency radio waves, which would explain the time lag. Here is a good article on the topic -
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast26nov_1.htm
nprev
Feb 2 2008, 06:55 PM
FWIW, the sound was the only reason that I saw it at all. It was around 2PM, broad daylight, double boom (very similar to that heard during a Shuttle reentry, BTW), and I looked up expecting to see a fighter contrail...surprise!
remcook
Feb 3 2008, 11:22 AM
steve-you're right of course. other things must be important in this case too, changing the angle at which you see the thing. might be secondaries,as noted, but that doesn't work for e.g. the space shuttle.
found an interesting link:
http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjgg/2004/021-lo.pdfwind plays a role too apparently.
so maybe refraction and wind can do the trick
helvick
Feb 3 2008, 12:02 PM
The Shuttle boom being audible while it's visible is not the same problem - it's decelerating all the way down to subsonic so for some section of its final approach it must be visible at the same time as people on the ground can hear it.
remcook
Feb 3 2008, 12:13 PM
ah,..sorry about that.me being thick again
SteveM
Feb 28 2008, 08:30 PM
QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jan 25 2008, 09:09 PM)
Hubble will be covering the 2007 WD5/Mars close approach. From the schedule:
11497 A6C Noll Observations of Mars and 2007 WD5
2008.030 10:54:00 11:05:00 1149705 Noll 05-001 MARS WFPC2 IMAGE PC1-FIX F410M 1.20 05 01 02
2008.030 10:54:00 11:05:00 1149705 Noll 05-002 MARS WFPC2 IMAGE PC1-FIX F502N 1.80 05 01 03
2008.030 10:54:00 11:05:00 1149705 Noll 05-003 MARS WFPC2 IMAGE PC1 F673N 0.40 05 01 04
FWIW, the Hubble observations have not yet made their way into the major asteroid tracking sites. Both
JPL and
NEODys are reporting their most recent observations as 2008-01-09. Assuming they can do good astrometry from a moving telescope, observations so close to the asteroid's pass by Mars should refine the subsequent trajectory.
Steve M
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.