Talk:Interstellar object

Moons of Jupiter
If Jupiter can capture a interstellar comet every 60 million years, could this mean the majority of the moons of Jupiter are in fact these comets? - User:62.8.126.181
 * No. They go into orbit around the Sun, not around Jupiter. What happens is that the interstellar comet is moving too fast initially for it to remain in the solar system. But occasionally Jupiter's gravity can take enough of the speed off the comet for it to settle into orbit around the Sun. Reyk  YO!  12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar debris
The article Pan-STARRS has a link entitled Interstellar debris to here. Quote "During the formation of a planetary system it is thought that a very large number of objects are ejected due to gravitational interactions with planets (as many as 1013 such objects in the case of the Solar System). Objects ejected by planetary systems around other stars might plausibly be flying throughout the galaxy". Are all such objects interstellar comets, if not should there be a new article on debris? John a s (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose a lot of those objects would be rocky rather than icy, and so it might not be right to call them comets. Maybe they could be put in as a subsection of this article, if there are sources for it. Later on if it turns out that there's as much material on interstellar debris as there is on just interstellar comets, we can think about renaming the page. What do you think? Reyk  YO!  21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the page is fine, it describes a theoretical object that is likely to exist. I note that it should be possible to distinquish one from a comet that came from the Oort cloud (which I read is also a theory) due to its trajectory, so lets hope one appears soon! John a s (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * distinquish? 35.129.197.5 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Comet Hyakutake
Why is there a picture of Comet Hyakutake heading this article, as it is not an interstellar comet? Maybe an artists impression is needed. John a s (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstellar 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/20140916085824/http://www.space.com/19156-exocomets-alien-solar-systems.html to http://www.space.com/19156-exocomets-alien-solar-systems.html

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) 07:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional refs


























The following citations were removed during a recent re-write of the introduction, which had become a mess. It wasn't clear exactly what facts they were meant to substantiate, but they are related to the distinction between exoplanets and exocomets. Jess_Riedel (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (Previous ref name="Space-20130107")


 * (Previous ref name="Beust1990")


 * (Previous ref name="Berkeley-20130107")

Requested move 29 October 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Interstellar comet → Interstellar object – The recent discovery of A/2017 U1 which is the first known interstellar object, and is likely not a comet, suggests this article's title be broadened to include it. Interstellar object is already a redirect to this article (and interstellar comet would then be, of course) and the editorial changes to the text would be quite minor. agr (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support obvious change, since we have an interstellar asteroid, but no comets yet observed. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I wouldn't be opposed to a move in general, but I think the proposed title is too vague to be useful. Reyk  YO!  18:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Until we discover some radically different kind of interstellar object, and it requires its own article, this would appear to be a "what if" objection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. For instance, we already know of rogue planets and free-floating brown dwarfs, among other things. The proposed title would seem to include those as well. I think we need to consider a name that makes it clear we're talking about something that's making a close passage through the Solar System. Reyk  YO!  06:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but use of the term "object" for something in the solar system that could be a comet or an asteroid seems established, e.g. Trans-Neptunian object, or Kuiper belt object (KBO). If better nomenclature develops we can revisit the title. Note that this article distinguishes Interstellar comets from exocomets.--agr (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Since there is a continuum between comets and asteroids, they should be combined and discussed as a whole. -- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Keep current with the actual science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As per the previous discussion here- I think that it would be less ambiguous if it was renamed "interstellar minor planet". It specifies either asteroids or comets, while ruling out things like exoplanets or rogue planets. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support probably the best name currently (I can assume the academics are working out how better to classify bodies which visit our Solar System from outside). Current title also can be confused easily with Exocomet. -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It should probably be moved, but interstellar minor planet would be a more accurate title. Sakkura (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Our article Minor planet defines them as "an astronomical object in direct orbit around the Sun that is neither a planet nor exclusively classified as a comet." Indeed the word planet implies an orbit around a star. The IAU Minor Planet Center web site says "The MPC is responsible for the designation of minor bodies in the solar system: minor planets; comets; and natural satellites." Perhaps Interstellar minor body or Interstellar minor object might work, though I have not seen either used elsewhere. Note we also have an article Substellar object which includes brown dwarfs.--agr (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The word planet does not imply an orbit around a star. See rogue planet. Anyway, I guess small interstellar body (by analogy to Small Solar System body) or interstellar minor body would be the most accurate term. The substellar object article illustrates the problem of using "object" for this topic. Sakkura (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2017 (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.

Substellar object?
Given that substellar objects includes asteroids and comets and what-have-you, it seems odd to exclude substellar object in the initial definition of what an interstellar object is. Was it meant to say low mass stars perhaps? RhinoMind (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As I understand it a substar is a failed star, being not quite big enough for nuclear fusion, but the Substellar object article claims that the definition includes anything smaller than a star, including planets (and presumably coconuts and suchlike). I'd suggest that the opening paragraph of this article is specifically referring to failed stars, and the other article needs rewriting. I'll alter the opening paragraph to read, "An interstellar object is a body other than a star or substar located in interstellar space, and not gravitationally bound to a star." (It will still be linked.) It might be a good idea to tidy up the other article since, as far as I know, asteroids and comets (and coconuts) are not classed as substellar objects. nagualdesign 20:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Good idea. I don't know what "substellar object" is supposed to mean really, so I didn't dare mingling with that article on my own. RhinoMind (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible that there's more than one definition of substellar object, or rather, that there are two not-quite-related concepts that both employ the same phrase, and the Substellar object article is erroneously mixing the two. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia adopting a working definition and sticking with that. Alternatively, the two concepts could be given different articles (Substellar object and Substar?), though that would probably be confusing. If you check through the references and see which ones use which definition, we could rewrite the article to specifically mean failed stars (unless others disagree) with a subsection to explain other uses of the phrase if necessary. To be honest, I don't think that any astronomers consider terrestrial planets to be substellar objects, or if they do then they don't consider substellar object and substar to be synonyms. nagualdesign</b> 21:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Creation of new section for identified or potential candidates other than 'Oumuamua
I've just added a line regarding the PNG bolide, tucked in under the existing section for 'Oumuamua. It occurs to me that it and the previously mentioned four other candidate objects probably deserve a section of their own, but I see we have no articles about the other four objects, and I've found no real extra information regarding them online to warrant a new section. It's not ideal, but for now I've left them all lumped together. If anyone can find any other references and wants to move that content to the new section, please do. Cadar (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Interstellar interloper
From when this article was started until November 2017, it was about interstellar comets. An interstellar object can be anything not bound to the Sun. It would be good to move this article to a more appropriate name as stars are also traveling among the stars. -- Kheider (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Interstellar object on Earth?
For consideration/discussion - Copied the following below (in part) from Talk:ʻOumuamua - hope it helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - seems an interstellar object may currently be on Earth - recent news    may be of possible interest to some I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Updated the lede of the 'Oumuamua article as follows => *Oumuamua is a known interstellar object detected passing through the Solar System.(+ref) It is possibly the second interstellar object known; the first being a purported interstellar meteor that impacted Earth in 2014.(+refs)" - seems better - comments welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

FURTHER Updates (also for consideration/discussion) - originally in the "Interstellar object" article as follows:

'''The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through our Solar System was 1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was 2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significant hyperbolic excess velocity, indicating they did not originate in the Solar System. Earlier, in 2014, an interstellar object was purported to have impacted Earth, based on its estimated initial high velocity.'''
 * Interstellar object - LEDE

'''In 2019, a preprint was published suggesting that a 0.45 meter meteor of interstellar origin, did burn up in the Earth's atmosphere on January 8, 2014. It had a heliocentric speed of 60 km/s and an asymptotic speed of 42.1±5.5 km/s, and it exploded at 17:05:34 UTC near Papua New Guinea at an altitude of 18.7 km. After declassifying the data in April 2022, the U.S. Space Command confirmed the detection through its planetary protection sensors.'''
 * Interstellar object

In April 2022, astronomers reported the possibility that a meteor that impacted Earth in 2014 may have been an interstellar object due to its estimated high initial velocity.
 * Interstellar object