Sterling also wrote:
Stoss uses NEAT data, DSS and POSS data, to
refine the orbit. He never uses Brown's data? Wouldn't
that help refine it?
Not at all, because the telescope log data provide you with only rough telescope
pointing positions, not the arcsecond accuracy object positions Ortiz' data,
NEAT data, DSS and POSS provided. With the Ortiz, NEAT, DSS and POSS data
available through Ortiz' and Stoss observing data and Stoss's image archive
precovery activities, the addition of Browns/SMARTS telescope log data would not
have improved the orbital solution at all (rather, it would probably have
worsened it). The SMARTS log did not contain astrometry for the object, only
rough telescope pointing locations.
Yet, 20 minutes after the times of
his own Mallorca observations and recovery of the
object, someone at IAA is accessing Brown's positional
data AGAIN.
I am most curious. Why? Are they merely "curious"?
At this point, they have discovery positions (2003),
archival positions (NEAT, etc.), and current position
(Mallorca) of "their" object. Why check someone else's
data if you are not going to use it and claim that you
are not even sure if it's the same object?
As explained above, with the data they HAD at that time, Brown's data would not
have contributed anything valid at all to what they already had. Hence, this
MUST have been curiosity, yes. And understandable. There is that mysterious
reference to an "object" that could or could not be the same. It is
understandable that you compare the little that is known about that object to
your data.
In fact, with what orbital
data they already have, they can easily determine
from Brown's data accessed the first time that it
IS the same.
They could determine that it was very likely to concern the same object. Which
is interesting, but holds no further meaning. Curiosity could very easily lead
to further comparison. The fact that they accessed the data again after
accumulating a much larger and much more accurate body of data themselves,
points out that they did not acces the data in order to use it, but rather to
compare. This strongly suggest the question behind this was: "is it really the
same object?". By contrast, if Browns data would have been the starting point
for finding the object in the first place, they would not have had to question
whether it was the same object.... For the rest, I refer to my previous mails.
- Marco
-----
Dr Marco Langbroek
Leiden, The Netherlands
Volunteer image reviewer FMO Spacewatch Project
NEAT archive hunter
Admin FMO Mailing List
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
private website http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek/asteroid.html
FMO Mailing List website: http://home.wanadoo.nl/marco.langbroek/fmo.html
-----
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
