Talk:Active asteroid

2011 CR42 Notes
-- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * CBET 2823 weak cometary activity: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/comets-ml/message/18037
 * Outer Main-belt Asteroid (3.2 AU < a < 4.6 AU) and has a 86 day observation arc: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2011CR42

70P/178P
Can someone clarify this article's content? Where do the standards for a main-belt comet come from? Is this an incomplete list? Just by these criteria, I know of two others that should be on the list: 70P/Kojima, which crosses Jupiter's orbit and Hug-Bell, which is entirely in the asteroid belt region. 71.12.171.24 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does need work. A really good explanation of various issues can be found at Henry Hsieh's webpage. Regarding 70P/Kojima and Hug-Bell, have a look at the right-hand diagram of orbital elements at the bottom of Hsieh's webpage. It's not enough to have a semi-major axis well within Jupiter's because lots of Jupiter family comets have this − small eccentricity (and presumably also inclination) is also needed to be in a typical main belt orbit. Deuar 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, I'll check out those links. Tiakalla 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at this diagram. Main belt zones are shown in orange, red and maroon. — Fjörgynn (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

P/2010 A2
The new nature article might me good enough to get P/2010 A2 off the list. Both groups identify it as an asteroid after a collision.--Stone (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to use it as an example of a probably false detection. JPL is still listing it as an Encke-type Comet. -- Kheider (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * HST is from Johns Hopkins so APL so they will not likely change it until they have their article on the topic. --Stone (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * P/2010 A2 is not in the main belt. The classification as 'Main Belt Comet' is a pure technicality, see also Dave Jewitt's site where he describes it as merely 'empirical': http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/mbc.html. -- Comet1979 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MBAs are defined as "Asteroids with orbital elements constrained by (2.0 AU < a < 3.2 AU; q > 1.666 AU)". -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rotational shedding
I just wanted to note this: [https://twitter.com/elakdawalla/status/258594748678418432 Jewitt: Newly discovered Main Belt Comet observed w/ HST. Coma is remarkably thin sheet--caused by rotational shedding?] -- Kheider (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Main-belt comet. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hsieh/mbcs.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090810052739/http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~hhh/mbcs.shtml to http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~hhh/mbcs.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501211319/http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000551/ to http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000551/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Main-belt comet. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026205338/http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hsieh/elstpiz.shtml to http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~hsieh/elstpiz.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026205513/http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/hsieh/mbcs.shtml to http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/hsieh/mbcs.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spinout of active asteroid
See Draft:Active asteroid. Is this a justifiable spinout? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 16:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Main-belt comet → Active asteroid – This type of solar system body has been referred to more commonly as an "active asteroid" for several years now in the astronomy community. David Jewitt and Henry Hsieh are the two astronomers that originally coined the term "main-belt comet" in 2006, and they switched to using the term "active asteroid" as early as 2011. Furthermore, "main-belt comet" excludes objects such as 101955 Bennu, which has recently been classified as an active asteroid but is not in the main belt. As Jewitt says, ""The preferred term for these bodies is "Active Asteroids". Formerly, we called them "Main Belt Comets" but this was misinterpreted by many people to mean that the active objects are necessarily icy. In most cases, we don't know if they are icy. In some cases we know that they are not.""  Yarnalgo  talk to me 21:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the move to active asteroid as the term main-belt comet is not really used any more. -- Kheider (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The first active asteroid discovered is 7968 Elst–Pizarro.
The article states "The first active asteroid discovered is 7968 Elst–Pizarro. It was discovered (as an asteroid) in 1979...", but Ceres was the first asteroid over all to be discovered, in 1801. Might it be more accurate to say, "The first asteroid to be identified as active is 7968 Elst–Pizarro. It was discovered (as an asteroid) in 1979..."? Jyg (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)