Talk:(285263) 1998 QE2

QE-sub-2?

Signifying what?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawyilee (talk • contribs) 04:30, 1 June 2013‎ (UTC)

It indicates the time of year the asteroid was discovered, and what number asteroid it was during that time period (so, 1998QE would be a datecode, and 2 would be the second discovered during that dateperiod) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(August 15, 1998 ends) 1998 QA through 1998 QZ, 1998 QA1 to 1998 QZ1, 1998 QA2, 1998 QB2, 1998 QC2, 1998 QD2, 1998 QE2 etc. until August 31, 1998 ends. Z isn't used for the 1st letter cause there is no 13th month. I is not used for either cause it looks like some handwritten J's. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"285263" is the numerical sequence from the very first asteroid discovered (1 Ceres) to be confirmed as a discovered asteroid; so this is the 285263th verified asteroid in the Solar System. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. A number is nowadays only assigned to minor planets (not just asteroids!) that have their orbits sufficiently well determined (which does not mean the same thing as 'verified'). Moreover, it's not always the lowest available number that is assigned, which is why Varuna and Quaoar have the minor-planet numbers 20000 and 50000 respectively. However, when the first asteroids were discovered, they were immediately assigned the lowest available number. --JorisvS (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comets don't use the same scheme as asteroids, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is its satellite brighter?

From the Satellite section: "In radar images, the satellite appears brighter than 1998 QE2 because it is rotating significantly more slowly and the much slower rotation rate compresses the satellite along the Doppler axis." Does this make any sense at all? Slow rotation does not compress objects, and compression does not make objects brighter. Maproom (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it might read better to say, "the much slower rotation rate compresses the radar return of the satellite along the Doppler axis"? -- Kheider (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but at least it's not obviously false. I have altered the page accordingly. Maproom (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The images aren't at all what they seem. See the reference to the claim and, more particularly, the other blog post the author refers to.[1][2] We ought to have a Delay-Doppler article but I suspect I am not up to doing one. Maybe a stub. Thincat (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Amateur astronomy

I think a mention should be made somewhere about all the streams that were put up there:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/31/18658007-asteroid-1998-qe2-sails-past-earth-leaving-cosmic-lessons-behind?lite and http://www.universetoday.com/102561/early-images-coming-in-of-asteroid-1998-qe2s-flyby/ RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Also here's an image of it's closest approach apparently http://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/06/asteroid-1998-QE2-Zlatan-Merakov-Smolyan-Bulgaria-e1370084928539.jpg from http://earthsky.org/space/images-and-video-of-asteroid-1998-qe2-flybyRocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Soot

The article says it's covered with a soot-like substance. Only one source I found says this while another one says that it's albedo makes it as reflective as soot. http://www.sen.com/News/observatories-set-to-watch-asteroid-sail-by.html Thoughts? -- RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

QE2 has a low, but not unheard of albedo for an asteroid, but would have a high albedo for a comet. Most comets have an albedo < 0.04. The Phys.org reference seems to be quoting Amy Mainzer, but I wonder if there might be a slight misquote/misunderstanding in the reference. I don't know if anyone has cloned the asteroids orbit (via Monte Carlo method) and integrated the clones 10,000 years into the past. Perhaps the clones would suggest the asteroid was much closer to the Sun 10,000+ years ago. I am a little dubious of the comet statements without a more detailed reference. In theory just about any asteroid with a low albedo could have shown cometary activity at some point in the past. -- Kheider (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Any updates?

The article says it would be a good target for telescopes. Did any information come out from it yet or is this all the information we have on this article? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)