Talk:15810 Arawn

New Horizons’ targets

> It is currently the best known target for a flyby by the New Horizons spacecraft after its Pluto flyby in 2015, but it is hoped that still better targets will be found by then

Please could somebody expert update this. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

1994 JR1 actually IS an accidental quasi-satellite of Pluto

1994 JR1 actually IS an accidental quasi-satellite of Pluto, regardless what the most recent NASA press release says.

Last week, NASA made a press release about the observations of 1994 JR1, stating that "the more accurate orbit also allows the science team to dispel a theory, suggested several years ago, that JR1 is a quasi-satellite of Pluto". I am currently corresponding with Carlos de la Fuente Marcos, author of the paper from 2012 that found JR1 to be an accidental quasi-satellite. It turns out that the findings from the New Horizons observations CONFIRM their results, but that the press release says different.

My email from 2016-05-22 16:51 GMT+2:00

Dear Carlos,

I have read their paper (which is on arxiv now http://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.05376v1.pdf ). Maybe I'm getting it wrong, but as far as I see, their orbital solution appears to confirm what you wrote in your own paper, and the rest is merely about semantics? Did you talk to them, or compare their results to yours?

Best wishes, Daniel

And Carlos' reply from earlier today:

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for your e-mail. Yes, we have read the preprint, submitted to ApJL. And, yes, you are completely right in your interpretation of their results. Indeed, they just confirm our original results, but they prefer not to call the object accidental quasi-satellite. They felt better calling the recurrent quasi-satellite episodes "scattering conjunctions". The improved orbit (which is not yet publicly available through the MPC or the JPL Horizons system) does not change the previous description of the dynamics of this object presented in our paper. Dr. Porter replied to our e-mail and he said almost the same you indicate in your e-mail. However, the press release said something rather different. The orbit available back in 2012 was good enough for this kind of study (but they have to "sell" the extended Pluto mission, do not forget that). The object is not alone in terms of orbital evolution and we plan to finally publish our results on the related objects. Our new work should be submitted at some point during the summer.

Best wishes,

Carlos

Renerpho (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The JPL paper states as follows: "While this could be described as Pluto quasi- satellite behavior... since JR1’s orbit is still primarily controlled by Neptune, a more precise description would be a series of periodic Pluto scattering events, one of which JR1 is currently experiencing." In short - the correct terminology for this particular configuration is currently not yet agreed upon by astronomers. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to take sides in such a controversy. I am changing the wording to be more neutral at this time, until a reference can be provided that indicates a definitive consensus among astronomers about whether JR1 should be classified as a quasi-satellite of Pluto.StormWillLaugh (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on (15810) 1994 JR1. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/plutos-fake-moon/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225014807/https://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/50000.txt to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/50000.txt

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 01:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Orbital period

The orbital periods given in the Infobox and in the "Orbital and physical properties" section's first paragraph do not match. The Infobox has the orbit as 248.07 years (90,609 days) while the numbers in the paragraph have the orbit as 247 years & 6 months (90,409 days).

Am curious which, if either, are the correct figures for the orbital period.2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)