What sort of image could we expect from Hubble of this object? Cheers, Martin
Even more strange claim. I strongly doubt anyone has been able to measure the mass of this object.
Quote from: Bynaus on 06/17/2016 06:18 amEven more strange claim. I strongly doubt anyone has been able to measure the mass of this object.Of course they have.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-measure/ - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/18/2016 01:06 pmQuote from: Bynaus on 06/17/2016 06:18 amEven more strange claim. I strongly doubt anyone has been able to measure the mass of this object.Of course they have.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-measure/ - Ed KyleThe OP was asking about THIS object, and since we haven't had a spacecraft near it, there's nothing for it to perturb gravitationally to get a mass. What you'd do is figure a few 1000 kg/m^3 density, give a factor of 2 uncertainty (mostly on the low side in case it's like Mathilde). Given the uncertainty in the size, there's probably about a factor of 10 uncertainty in mass right now. I suspect the size can be measured pretty accurately by radar from the intensity of a reflected signal.Given that Congress seems to want to kill ARRM, it would probably be more useful to think of a low-cost way to get a probe to the asteroid. The Japanese Procyon would likely be a good departure point for a design, but of course its SEP failure would have to be diagnosed and remedied.
Quote from: MP99 on 06/18/2016 11:35 amWhat sort of image could we expect from Hubble of this object? Cheers, MartinA dot. Resolution of Hubble at that distance should be 5 km for violet/soft UV wavelengths.
Quote from: jgoldader on 06/18/2016 02:06 pmThe OP was asking about THIS object, and since we haven't had a spacecraft near it, there's nothing for it to perturb gravitationally to get a mass. What you'd do is figure a few 1000 kg/m^3 density, give a factor of 2 uncertainty (mostly on the low side in case it's like Mathilde). Given the uncertainty in the size, there's probably about a factor of 10 uncertainty in mass right now. I suspect the size can be measured pretty accurately by radar from the intensity of a reflected signal.If the orbit is known, the mass is known. - Ed Kyle
The OP was asking about THIS object, and since we haven't had a spacecraft near it, there's nothing for it to perturb gravitationally to get a mass. What you'd do is figure a few 1000 kg/m^3 density, give a factor of 2 uncertainty (mostly on the low side in case it's like Mathilde). Given the uncertainty in the size, there's probably about a factor of 10 uncertainty in mass right now. I suspect the size can be measured pretty accurately by radar from the intensity of a reflected signal.
Quote from: Nilof on 06/18/2016 12:14 pmQuote from: MP99 on 06/18/2016 11:35 amWhat sort of image could we expect from Hubble of this object? Cheers, MartinA dot. Resolution of Hubble at that distance should be 5 km for violet/soft UV wavelengths.What sort of image could we expect from JWST of this object?
How the sizes of asteroids too small to resolve are estimated:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/multimedia/gallery/neowise/pia14733.html
Quote from: Donosauro on 06/18/2016 07:56 pmHow the sizes of asteroids too small to resolve are estimated:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/multimedia/gallery/neowise/pia14733.htmlIt's really faint.Which telescopes could observe 2016 HO3 in the thermal infrared?WISE is no longer doing thermal infrared observations, and it is not clear that 2016 HO3 ever went across WISE's line of sight, given the odd orbit, or that it could be seen by WISE. (Wise expanded the population of <1km NEOs, but how many <0.1 km NEOs did it find?)Does it get far enough from the Sun to allow JWST to look at it, when JWST launches and IF observing 2016 HO3 successfully competed for observing time?
Perhaps this could be suitable for a BEO cubesat mission. Duration should be reasonably short, distance for communicating back is fairly low. No issue with distance from the Sun for solar panels. Flyby would give useful info, and might not have to be at huge speed (depending on SC lifetime). Cheers, Martin
Quote from: dror on 06/18/2016 06:05 pmQuote from: Nilof on 06/18/2016 12:14 pmQuote from: MP99 on 06/18/2016 11:35 amWhat sort of image could we expect from Hubble of this object? Cheers, MartinA dot. Resolution of Hubble at that distance should be 5 km for violet/soft UV wavelengths.What sort of image could we expect from JWST of this object?JWST is bigger, but it's also restricted to longer wavelengths so its maximum resolution should still be >4 km. You'd need a diffraction limited telescope with a 100m main mirror (or an interferometer with a baseline of that magnitude) to resolve this asteroid. For pretty pictures, sending something close to it is the only real option....