Talk:(523794) 2015 RR245

Untitled
I'm not good at editing, but here's a graphic I made. Feel free to use. And also a link for the External links section when one gets created. They are from my website http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/2015RR245.html Image: http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/2015%20RR245.GIF External link: [Simulation of 2015 RR245's orbit]: http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1468264269914_2015%20RR245.html

TNO Template?
I haven't done much Astronomy editing on Wikipedia. Is there distinct TNO or dwarf planet infobox? Or should we just use the "planet" infobox? Compare this with a listing for something like Neptune or Makemake.

Links
Astronomers Discover Dwarf Planet 8 Billion Miles Past Pluto, AstroBob blog

Claim of M.Brown size estimate...
OK, this seems wrong in two ways - not only does it imply a disconnect between albedo and size, when there's usually a strong link and all the other surrounding figures seem well in line with it (i.e, diameter changes by inverse square root of the albedo, for a given absolute magnitude, as brightness is contingent on area multiplied by reflectivity), but it doesn't match with what Brown's own (separately cited) website currently says. However, said website is still at odds with the main OSSOS discovery paper, as it now says albedo 0.10 and 615km, even futher adrift ... does anyone know what data and formula HE'S using to arrive at that pair of results, if not just pulling it out of his arse? The data for this object isn't particularly great, but it does (in the paper, and on the Johnson Archive) otherwise seem valid within the currently achievable limits of precision. 51.7.16.171 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit/aside: In hunting Google for any fresh public data that may have come to light since the object's first announcement and publication of the main paper in 2016, I found a single interesting hit (amongst endless blogs rehashing the source material, usually with wild inaccuracies such as saying it's been designated as a dwarf planet already)... an imaging programme proposal by the same team on the same telescope... which was once a PDF on the 'scope site but has since seemingly been deleted and now only has a remnant in the HTML Google Cache (which I immediately submitted to the internet archive...):


 * [| Mangled version of www.gemini.edu/files/fast/df6ea262b6.pdf]


 * Sadly that means the otherwise extremely useful images, which could have been the basis of an update to the article text proper all by themselves, have been lost to history. I dunno if Gemini keeps an archive of the proposals anywhere, but the programme itself can at least be verified as sitting in their queue, so it's just a matter of waiting for the science to be done and the results to be processed and published, and maybe THEN we can actually commit a cited update.


 * Anyway. Said proposal makes reference to as yet not publicly released (outside of said proposal; and might not ever be?) further processing of the wider data set collected as part of the huge initiative that discovered 2015 RR245 itself, wherein they apparently discovered trace evidence of a satellite, and quite a big one at that (something like a 4:1, or maybe 3:1 / 75:25 diameter ratio? the wording is unclear), but the imaging in that wide-scope study was too low resolution, low SNR and insufficiently atmosphere-corrected to recover it with any kind of precision or even certainty. The new ~2 hour of scope time study being aimed much more closely and solely at 2015 RR245, and making use of guide-star adaptive optics to resolve the system with much greater clarity (better than 0.04 arcsec, so easily distinguishing the two partners that are thought to be about 0.1 as apart).


 * So who knows, maybe Mike is party to data the rest of us don't have the benefit of, and has already adjusted his size estimate for the primary downwards in recognition of the contribution made by the secondary to overall system magnitude, which might still work even with its own albedo also being revised down slightly? It sort-of works for a 25% reduction in brightness contributed by the primary, plus a little more than an 0.10:0.11 change in albedo (munging 670km to 615km... ). If we consider the figures as 75:25 brightness rather than diameter (or 80:20/100:25) anyway... which would make the secondary comparitively massive - like maybe 355km diameter, with the same albedo. It probably also means the primary is much less likely to be in HE, or at least it might class as such but still with a bit of an egg shape to it (beyond even typical triaxial ovality? I'm not a huge expert on the exact way tidal forces work).


 * The full dataset is discussed on, and is probably somehow accessible via, the following page, along with several potentially interesting related articles:


 * [| https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/aab77a] 51.7.16.171 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! From what I see, allocated observational time has been doubled to over 4 hrs, and was 2% complete. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the brightness estimate of the satellite? Was it calculated based on different absolute magnitude estimates (3.6-3.8 and 4.1)? N rco0e (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Binary?
In the 2019 EPSC-DPS meeting, Noyelles et al. mentions that is among the six binary TNOs observed by the OSSOS program. I can't find any other information regarding 's binarity, but should this be added anyway? https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC-DPS2019/EPSC-DPS2019-601-1.pdf N rco0e (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Little available info means we can't be very picky. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)