7 ms·

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 c

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?

lima 2y ago
It's being tracked, but not by the "Minor Planet Center".
- dmurray 2y ago
  Hopefully it still is being tracked by them, otherwise when someone reports it tomorrow they'll have no idea what it is and will need to go through this song and dance again. It's just not being published on a certain curated list by the MPC.
- Thorrez 2y ago
  By who? They say there doesn't exist a database tracking things like this: >“This incident, along with previous NEOCP postings of the WMAP spacecraft, highlights the deplorable state of availability of positional information on distant artificial objects,” the MPC fumed when it retracted 2007 VN84. “A single source for information on all distant artificial objects would be very desirable.”
  - lima 2y ago
    The ID they use is from a US government database: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=2018-017A https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id... I'm not sure if it was the lack of trajectories or the unusual orbit which caused the automation issue at MPC.
yapyap 2y ago
too late, deleted forever
- dylan604 2y ago
  Just like when you delete that tweet
jerbearito 2y ago
> The Minor Planet Electronic Circulars contain information on unusual minor planets, routine data on comets and natural satellites, and occasional editorial announcements. I assume it's being tracked elsewhere. But not here.
therealpygon 2y ago
It is being tracked under the correct designation “2018-017A”, therefore they are deleting an erroneous report that was temporarily assigned the designation that was deleted. What makes you think they “stopped tracking” it?
- Reason077 2y ago
  OK. But it seems like something is amiss if this error keeps being made. Why didn't the reporting astronomer, or anyone who presumably checked the submission, find the 2018-017A object when searching for it in their database?
  - minetest2048 2y ago
    Because their software, sat_id can only search Earth-orbiting satellites: > Payne noted that when the Tesla Roadster was originally launched in 2018, the community caught it and flagged it as an artificial object, and the MPC “correctly labeled it as such without assigning a minor planet designation.” But when subsequent observations were archived by the MPC and later identified by G., sat_id failed to locate the Roadster, said Payne. And the object was not caught upon further review because unlike most satellites, it orbits the Sun and not Earth. In addition, it is an unusual Sun-centric orbit for a spacecraft. Because it was a test flight for the Falcon Heavy, there was no destination in particular; that is why its trajectory originates near Earth but overshoots Mars’ orbit, as G. noted. As the article mentioned, there is no such thing as space-track.org or celestrak.org where anyone can get trajectories for all deep space spacecraft. The closest thing we have is JPL Horizons, so they're working with them: > Payne agreed that a central repository, “regularly updated by national and private space agencies, would significantly enhance the identification process.” Currently, he said, the MPC is collaborating with JPL on a system to better detect artificial objects that aren’t in Earth orbit and filter them out of the MPC’s observational database.
    - LiamPowell 2y ago
      In some of the other cases listed in the article such as 1966-084B (2020 SO) the position was unknown until they found it and as such no central database could have helped them, but it's unclear why Horizons would not help with the Roadster given they could query it with the observed position.
RIMR 2y ago
You should probably read the article first before you make assumptive comments like this.

lima 2y ago

It's being tracked, but not by the "Minor Planet Center".

dmurray 2y ago
Hopefully it still is being tracked by them, otherwise when someone reports it tomorrow they'll have no idea what it is and will need to go through this song and dance again. It's just not being published on a certain curated list by the MPC.
Thorrez 2y ago
By who? They say there doesn't exist a database tracking things like this: >“This incident, along with previous NEOCP postings of the WMAP spacecraft, highlights the deplorable state of availability of positional information on distant artificial objects,” the MPC fumed when it retracted 2007 VN84. “A single source for information on all distant artificial objects would be very desirable.”
- lima 2y ago
  The ID they use is from a US government database: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=2018-017A https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id... I'm not sure if it was the lack of trajectories or the unusual orbit which caused the automation issue at MPC.

yapyap 2y ago

too late, deleted forever

dylan604 2y ago
Just like when you delete that tweet

jerbearito 2y ago

> The Minor Planet Electronic Circulars contain information on unusual minor planets, routine data on comets and natural satellites, and occasional editorial announcements. I assume it's being tracked elsewhere. But not here.

therealpygon 2y ago

It is being tracked under the correct designation “2018-017A”, therefore they are deleting an erroneous report that was temporarily assigned the designation that was deleted. What makes you think they “stopped tracking” it?

Reason077 2y ago
OK. But it seems like something is amiss if this error keeps being made. Why didn't the reporting astronomer, or anyone who presumably checked the submission, find the 2018-017A object when searching for it in their database?
- minetest2048 2y ago
  Because their software, sat_id can only search Earth-orbiting satellites: > Payne noted that when the Tesla Roadster was originally launched in 2018, the community caught it and flagged it as an artificial object, and the MPC “correctly labeled it as such without assigning a minor planet designation.” But when subsequent observations were archived by the MPC and later identified by G., sat_id failed to locate the Roadster, said Payne. And the object was not caught upon further review because unlike most satellites, it orbits the Sun and not Earth. In addition, it is an unusual Sun-centric orbit for a spacecraft. Because it was a test flight for the Falcon Heavy, there was no destination in particular; that is why its trajectory originates near Earth but overshoots Mars’ orbit, as G. noted. As the article mentioned, there is no such thing as space-track.org or celestrak.org where anyone can get trajectories for all deep space spacecraft. The closest thing we have is JPL Horizons, so they're working with them: > Payne agreed that a central repository, “regularly updated by national and private space agencies, would significantly enhance the identification process.” Currently, he said, the MPC is collaborating with JPL on a system to better detect artificial objects that aren’t in Earth orbit and filter them out of the MPC’s observational database.
  - LiamPowell 2y ago
    In some of the other cases listed in the article such as 1966-084B (2020 SO) the position was unknown until they found it and as such no central database could have helped them, but it's unclear why Horizons would not help with the Roadster given they could query it with the observed position.

RIMR 2y ago

You should probably read the article first before you make assumptive comments like this.