Talk:(148209) 2000 CR105
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Orbit
From User:66.82.9.80, who inserted it into the main article:
- On your article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna, it states "Another object, 2000 CR105, has an orbit similar to Sedna's but a bit less extreme: perihelion is 45 AU, aphelion is 415 AU, and the orbital period is 3420 years." The problem being in this current article it says that the orbit of 2000 CR105 is 3175 years as where the Sedna page staes the orbit as 3420 years. I just thought you should know.
--Christopher Thomas 05:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Orbit elements based on a limited numbers of observations are shaky and improve over time. The articles took the orbital elements from different estimates. Aligned Eurocommuter 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Distance
The 2000 disambiguation page says this object is the third most distant object in the solar system, but the actual page says the fourth most distant. Which is it? -- 65.215.33.194
As of 2008, according to JPL Horizons, *current* AU distance from Sun:
Eris: 96.78
Sedna: 88.24
Buffy: 58.16 (Buffy will be further from the Sun than 2000 CR105 until mid January 2011)
2000 CR105: 56.40
2000 OO67: 21.08 (came to perihelion on April 18, 2005)
See also: Talk:90377_Sedna#Farthest_from_the_sun.3F and http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/Sedna2076.txt
-- Kheider (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Exoplanet Probability
WikiArticle: 1% chance of a outer planetary exchange
Abstract: 10% chance that Sedna was captured from the outer disk of the passing star (??)
PDF: Thus the total probability to produce at least one object with a Sedna-like orbit in the Solar System is reasonably large, ~5% to 10% for an indigenous object and ~1% for a captured object. 2000 CR105 is 2–3 times more likely to be a captured planet than Sedna.
So why does the abstract claim a 10% chance and the PDF claims only a 1% chance? Is the abstract a typo? It would make sense that there is a 1% chance that Sedna was an exoplanet and a 3% chance that 2000 CR105 was an exoplanet. I can't see 2000 CR105 having a 30% of being an exoplanet. Or am I missing something in the numbers or wording? -- Kheider (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
