Hi all,
I've just performed a single-night recovery of 2003 SQ168, it's within 1' from
predicted position at mag. 20.6-20.8 R.
Astrometry just sent to the MPC.
The second night (hopefully) tonight.

Regards,
Luca Buzzi
# 204



-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: mpml@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpml@yahoogroups.com]Per conto di
Robert McNaught
Inviato: domenica 30 dicembre 2007 12.06
A: MPML
Oggetto: Re: {MPML} Re: Datura & 2003 SQ168


According to MPCES, 2003 SQ168 has been observed from 2002 Apr to
2003 Nov.  The arc can be significantly increased at the current
opposition.  Tonight it is at elongation 144 mag 20.3V (RA 09h10m
Dec +20).  For use in long term integrations, I'd suggest trying to
get 0".1 precision.
Cheers, Rob

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert H. McNaught
Uppsala Telescope/Siding Spring Survey
Australian National University
Siding Spring Observatory
Coonabarabran, NSW 2357
Australia

P:  +61 2 6842 6260
F:  +61 2 6842 6240

SSS Webpage: http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~rmn/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with the
stipulation
that MPML and the originating author are cited as the source of the information.
Yahoo! Groups Links





--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1187 - Release Date: 16/12/2007
11.36

Hi Andrea,
With the use of the last observations of 2007WD5 the propability of the
impact with Mars grows to about 4.5%!
Best regards,
Ireneusz Wlodarczyk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrea Milani" <milani@...>
To: "wlodarczyk_i" <astrobit@...>
Cc: "Minor Planets Mailing List" <mpml@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: {MPML} Re: 2007 WD5? (potential Mars impactor)


>
> I apologize if this looks like the "foreign aid" logic pointed out by Alan
> Harris, but the fact is, we do not perform impact monitoring for other
> planets. In our CLOMON2 code there is a very brutal control
>
> ! input close approach data
>   despla='EARTH'
>   CALL masjpl
>   CALL inclolinctp(iunout,iunclo,despla,vas_trace,no,nox)
>   IF(no.le.0)THEN
>      WRITE(*,*)' NO CLOSE APPROACHES TO EARTH'
>      GOTO 99
>   ENDIF
>
> in such a way that close approaches to other planets are discarded. Yes, I
> could set "despla='MARS'", but then it would not work, that is, the
> software modifications would not be minor and we do not have manpower to
> do them (and test properly). The Mars Science Academy does not fund us to
> do this effort :-).
>
> However, as Ireneusz has shown, it is perfectly possible to use the OrbFit
> software to compute the possibility of an impact to Mars, and even to
> estimate the probability.
>
> The only thing I have done, on occasion of the discussion on 2007 WU5
> possible impact on Mars, is to remove an old fashioned computation which
> was done on NEODyS to provide the "Minimum Possible Distance" in the close
> approach table. Now the computation is correct (well, it is a better
> approximation using the MOID rather than a purely linear approach) and you
> can check on
>
> http://131.114.72.13/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2007WD5;main
>
> that the mimimum possible distance is estimated at less than the
> radius of Mars. By using the value of the stretching, and taking into
> account that the Virtual impactor corresponds to the nominal solution
> (where the probability density is maximum) you can get the value of the
> Impact Probability, that is the value given in Ireneusz's last message
> (and close to the JPL estimate).
>
> As for what will happen in reality, I am sorry but I have to remind to all
> on this list something which keeps beoing forgotten, namely that all
> probability estimates are skewed because of the scandal of the missing
> statistical error model. That is, the values shown on NEODyS (e.g,
> stretching 0.00062 AU) are computed using 1 arcsec weighing. This implies
> that the probabilities, for a VI near the nominal, are in fact
> underestimated, because the real stretching, using an accurate error
> model, would be significantly less.
>
> The only good news (apart from the good news for us/bad for Martians that
> the impact on Mars is more likely than announced) is that the work of Jim
> Baer has been progressing very well and in fact a rigorous statistical
> error model for asteroid astrometry will be available soon. Again, it is
> mostly a problem of manpower for us to implement and contribute to the
> testing of Baer's model, but thanks to some funding from the Italian Space
> Agency we have finally received (after 5 years of exactly zero funding) we
> will be able to have one new postodc working at NEODyS from Summer 2008,
> and this is one of the new things we hope to do.
>
> Yours Andrea
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, wlodarczyk_i wrote:
>
> > Adding the normal distribution to my results, i.e. to colliding
> > clones of 2007WD5 with Mars, the probability grows from 1.3 to 2.9%,
> > close to the JPL results.
> > Best regards,
> > Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
> > 553 Chorzow
> >
> > --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "wlodarczyk_i" <astrobit@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > With the use of the OrbFit software and the multiple solution
> > method
> > > I have computed
> > > that about 630 clones of 2007WD5 from all 50,000 (1.3%) inside 3-
> > > sigma have impact with Mars.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
> > > 553 Chorzow
> > >
> > > --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, Aldo Vitagliano <alvitagl@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Based on 23 of 25 observations that are reported today by the
> > > NeoDys
> > > > database, I have MonteCarlo generated 1000 clones of the object
> > > using my
> > > > software Exorb. The dispersion along the line of variation is
> > > rather large,
> > > > due to high covariance between the elements. An impact
> > probability
> > > of 2.5%
> > > > is presently estimated (25 out of 1000 clones do actually impact
> > > Mars on
> > > > january 30)
> > > > A picture of the probability "cloud" at the moment of Mars
> > > > encounter,projected onto the ecliptic, is given at the link
> > below.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Aldo Vitagliano
> > > >
> > > > http://www.webalice.it/alvitagl/Figures/MarsImp.gif
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aldo Vitagliano
> > > > Dip. di Chimica, Universita' di Napoli
> > > > Complesso Universitario di M.S. Angelo, via
> > > Cintia
> > > > I-80126 Napoli, Italy
> > > > tel. +39-081674462
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ================================================
> Andrea Milani Comparetti
> Dipartimento di Matematica
> Piazzale B. Pontecorvo 5
> 56127 PISA ITALY
>
> tel. +39-050-2213254 fax +39-050-2213224
> cellular phone +39-349-4482751
> E-mail: milani@...
> WWW: http://copernico.dm.unipi.it/~milani/
> ================================================
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1198 - Release Date:
2007-12-26 17:26
>
>

--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Ireneusz Wlodarczyk" <astrobit@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
> With the use of the last observations of 2007WD5 the propability of the
> impact with Mars grows to about 4.5%!
> Best regards,
> Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
>

Indeed, the situation is much better defined after the latest four
observations by H01. The spread of the uncertainty cloud is almost
halved, and 95% of the cloud approaches Mars to less than 70000 km.
The effect of including or rejecting the two obserbations (by obs 291)
  giving the largest residuals, i. e.
2007 12 04.22377
2007 12 05.22618
  is now moderate and not strong as it was before.
The closest approach time and distance of the nominal solution are now
not very different from each other:
12:16:01 TT (35100 km) all observation included.
12:06:01 TT (30400 km) two observations discarded.
and the difference in impact probability is now moderate: around 4%
with all observations included, and around 2% after rejecting the two
observations.

Best regards
Aldo Vitagliano

December 31, 2007

Media Contact:
Lee Tune
240-328-4914
ltune@...

Deep Impact Zooms by Earth on New Year's Eve
(Earth Flyby and Moon Pics Mark Start of New Mission)

College Park, Md. -- This New Year's Eve the University of Maryland-led Deep
Impact team will again celebrate a holiday in a way that few can match, when
their Deep Impact spacecraft "buzzes” the Earth on a flyby that marks the
beginning of a more than two-and-a-half-year journey to comet Hartley 2.

In 2005, the Deep Impact team, led by University of Maryland astronomer
Michael A'Hearn, celebrated July 4th by smashing a probe into comet Tempel 1
to give the world its first look inside a comet.

The trip to Hartley 2 is one part of a new two-part mission for the team and
its Deep Impact spacecraft. During the first six months of the journey, the
Extrasolar Planet Observations and Characterization (EPOCh) mission team
will use the larger of the two telescopes on the Deep Impact spacecraft to
search for Earth-sized planets around five stars selected as likely
candidates for such planets. Upon arriving at the comet the Deep Impact
eXtended Investigation (DIXI) will conduct an extended flyby of Hartley 2
using all three of the spacecraft's instruments (two telescopes with digital
color cameras and an infrared spectrometer. The name for the new combined
mission, EPOXI, is a combination of the names of its component missions
(EPOCh + DIXI = EPOXI).

The team is using the flyby of Earth to calibrate the spacecrafts
instruments for the new mission and to help slingshot it on the way toward
Hartley 2. Although the spacecraft will come closest to the Earth on New
Year's Eve, the Maryland-led team has already begun its calibration work.

"On Saturday, 29 December, two days before its close flyby of Earth, the
Deep Impact flyby spacecraft made observations of the moon to calibrate its
instruments for its new mission, EPOXI,” said A'Hearn. "Some calibrations
are obtainable only on a bright, large source, like the moon when reasonably
close to it. It looks as though everything operated just as the science team
asked it to operate and you can't ask for anything better than that,” he
said. "

'This Earth gravity assist provided a unique opportunity for us to calibrate
our instruments using the Moon,” said Jessica Sunshine, a senior research
scientist at the University of Maryland. "In particular, the Moon is very
useful because it fills the entire field of view of the infrared
spectrometer. The results show that our spacecraft pointing and commanding
was spot on. We also made measurements which will allow us to
cross-calibrate our instruments with telescopic data and, in the very near
future, with a wealth of lunar measurements from new orbiting spacecraft.
These data will significantly
improve the science from EPOCh observations of Earth and the DIXI flyby of
comet Hartley 2, as well as from Deep Impact's prime mission to comet Tempel
1," said Sunshine who is deputy principal investigator on DIXI.

Past releases with more information about the mission can be found on the
University of Maryland's Newsdesk Web site:
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1564
To see all UM Deep Impact releases search for Deep Impact using the search
box in the upper right portion of the page.

Images of the moon taken by the Deep Impact spacecraft and updates about the
mission can be seen on the web site for the new EPOXI mission:
http://epoxi.umd.edu/

The DeepImpact Web site is: http://deepimpact.umd.edu/

For people in the United States, the Deep Impact spacecraft generally will
be below the horizon during the nighttime hours on New Years Eve and New
Year's day and thus not visible, but check the EPOXI site for detailed
viewing information.

Hi Folks,
I am currently working the lightcurve of 5331 Erimomisaki. After a few
nights of data, it is pretty clear that it has a period of about 24 hrs
and an amplitude of about .35mag.

Most of our data so far has been taken from New Mexico, but it is
likely that we will have a night or two from Minnesota as well. We are
looking for collaborators in locations well East or West of us (Europe,
Asia, Australia, New Zealand...etc.) to complete the curve.

It is currently at about 14th magnitude and is located near RA 4h dec
+1d.  If you have an interest in collaborating on this project with us,
please contact me.

Regards,

Russ Durkee
Shed of Science Observatory
Minneapolis, MN

Hi All,

My software has turned up another pair of asteroids (Hungarias this
time) in essentially the same orbit:

(63440) 2001 MD30
Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT = JDT 2454400.5
T = 2454355.22070 JDT
M  16.53908            (2000.0)          P             Q
n   0.36526793   Peri.  205.56087   +0.27695922   -0.92502409
a   1.9381841    Node   229.53583   +0.92980918   +0.32626860
e   0.0886214    Incl.   19.98663   +0.24238085   -0.19462589
P   2.70           H   15.2         G   0.15         U   1
q =     1.7664194
Earth MOID = 0.78748 AU
From 157 observations at 6 oppositions, 1977-2003, mean residual 0".61.

2004 TV14
Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT = JDT 2454400.5
T = 2454364.02857 JDT
M  13.32189            (2000.0)          P             Q
n   0.36526925   Peri.  205.58023   +0.27665243   -0.92511665
a   1.9381794    Node   229.53546   +0.92991763   +0.32595948
e   0.0886220    Incl.   19.98653   +0.24231514   -0.19470387
P   2.70           H   17.2         G   0.15         U   3
q =     1.7664140
Earth MOID = 0.78749 AU
From 43 observations at 3 oppositions, 2001-2004, mean residual 0".58.

These two had to have parted ways quite recently for their orbits
to still be so similar.  This is the first pair of multi-opposition
asteroids I've found that have a D-criterion < .0001.  --Rob

This pair of objects is fascinating on several levels.  First of all, I
agree, two orbits cannot remain so similar for any significant amount of
time, nor can they be simply chance coincidence of unrelated orbits.  In
this instance, the two bodies are only a few degrees separated in
longitude, but the instantaneous mean motion would have them currently
drifting slowly TOWARD each other.  On the face of it, this would imply
that they came apart a full revolution ago (750,000 years at the current
rate), and are just now within 1% of lapping one another.  This is all
highly implausible, both the near-coincidence of lapping, and the very long
synodic interval between laps.  My bet is that the osculating mean motions
jump around due to short term perturbations such that their instantaneous
difference is not a measure of the rate that the two are drifting with
respect to each other, or even the direction.  I'd like to see an
integration of these two backwards in time by ten thousand years or so, to
see if the longitudes come together in that interval, and also to see what
is the rate of divergence or convergence of the orbits.

The implication of these pairs is profound:  it suggests that asteroids,
like comets, sometimes "split", maybe for no easily apparent reason, and on
a short time scale.  The paradigm of families forming only by rare
catastrophic collisions may need some re-thinking.  Maybe asteroids just
"crumble" over time.

At 02:13 PM 1/2/2008, Matson, Robert D. wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>My software has turned up another pair of asteroids (Hungarias this
>time) in essentially the same orbit:
>
>(63440) 2001 MD30
>Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT = JDT 2454400.5
>T = 2454355.22070 JDT
>M  16.53908            (2000.0)          P             Q
>n   0.36526793   Peri.  205.56087   +0.27695922   -0.92502409
>a   1.9381841    Node   229.53583   +0.92980918   +0.32626860
>e   0.0886214    Incl.   19.98663   +0.24238085   -0.19462589
>P   2.70           H   15.2         G   0.15         U   1
>q =     1.7664194
>Earth MOID = 0.78748 AU
> From 157 observations at 6 oppositions, 1977-2003, mean residual 0".61.
>
>2004 TV14
>Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT = JDT 2454400.5
>T = 2454364.02857 JDT
>M  13.32189            (2000.0)          P             Q
>n   0.36526925   Peri.  205.58023   +0.27665243   -0.92511665
>a   1.9381794    Node   229.53546   +0.92991763   +0.32595948
>e   0.0886220    Incl.   19.98653   +0.24231514   -0.19470387
>P   2.70           H   17.2         G   0.15         U   3
>q =     1.7664140
>Earth MOID = 0.78749 AU
> From 43 observations at 3 oppositions, 2001-2004, mean residual 0".58.
>
>These two had to have parted ways quite recently for their orbits
>to still be so similar.  This is the first pair of multi-opposition
>asteroids I've found that have a D-criterion < .0001.  --Rob
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with
>the stipulation that MPML and the originating author are cited as the
>source of the information.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

*******************************************************************
Alan W. Harris
Senior Research Scientist
Space Science Institute
4603 Orange Knoll Ave.          Phone:  818-790-8291
La Canada, CA 91011-3364        email:  awharris@...
*******************************************************************

Are the orbital arcs long enough that integrations over
umpteen thousand years has any meaning?  And would it help if
there were archive plates available measure to extend the arcs
back a few more decades?  (The plates are certainly around,
but identifying them and getting them measured to a high standard
is the hard part.)


\Brian

AstDys shows the one-sigma variation in "a" for the three-opposition
2004 TV14 at 1.6e-06 AU, which is 35% of the difference between
the "a" value for 2004 TV14 and (63440).  Clearly, some astrometry
of 2004 TV14 at additional oppositions would assist in the study of
its long-term motion relative to (63440).  Good news -- it's at
opposition later this month.  Bad news -- no additional archival
images exist in DSS or SkyMorph.

Andrew

--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, Brian Skiff <bas@...> wrote:
>
>      Are the orbital arcs long enough that integrations over
> umpteen thousand years has any meaning?  And would it help if
> there were archive plates available measure to extend the arcs
> back a few more decades?  (The plates are certainly around,
> but identifying them and getting them measured to a high standard
> is the hard part.)
>
>
> \Brian
>

>      Are the orbital arcs long enough that integrations over
> umpteen thousand years has any meaning?  And would it help if
> there were archive plates available measure to extend the arcs
> back a few more decades?  (The plates are certainly around,
> but identifying them and getting them measured to a high standard
> is the hard part.)

Not really... half an hour total at most for the data miners
here on the list.

A prediction for POSS I + DSS1 + DSS2 is a matter of seconds.

(63440) is predicted on several plates from:
1989 01 08, A0MF
1990 08 18, A21I
1993 08 24, A142
1996 10 12, A27M

2004 TV14 (due to fainter H) on much less plates:
1993 08 17, A0PJ

There are many more archives, so if anyone wants to
add a few opps, it should be no problem to do so.

R.

> 2004 TV14 (due to fainter H) on much less plates:
> 1993 08 17, A0PJ

Checked the plate. Nice trail and easily measurable.
That will extend the 2001-2004 to 1993-2004 for 2004 TV14.

http://www.minorplanets.org/misc/2004_TV14_1993_08_17.jpg

Is anyone going to measure all those plates?
Tell me if not, and I'll do it later today...

Reiner

The current orbital arcs are sufficient to examine the question of how fast
they diverge due to planetary perturbations.  for example, the shorter arc,
of 2004 TV14, is 3 years and has a mean fit residual of 0.58
arcseconds.  Over three years (~1000 days), the difference in mean motion
between the two objects amounts to 4.8 arcseconds, so in the case of mean
motion, the difference between the two is established to around 10%.  I
don't expect that a 10,000 year integration would be able to identify the
moment when the two objects occupied the same spot in space closely enough
to say they broke apart at that time, but the question I would like to see
addressed is how fast the two orbits drift apart due to perturbations.  On
the face of it, the relative motions suggest a "lapping time" of close to a
million years.  I would be surprised if these two orbits remain as close to
coincident as they are at the moment for even the 10,000 year period I
suggested for an integration.  If one finds that the two orbits drift apart
by an amount greater than their current difference in 10,000 years, then
one can infer that the two objects separated sometime in the last 10,000
years, even if you can't back-integrate precisely enough to identify the
exact time and place in orbit.  This is essentially the same game played by
Nesvorny et al. in identifying very young families, but in this case we are
looking at very, very young events.  In the case of those young families,
you integrate orbits back to see when the nodal or apsidal lines match up
and based on that, imply an age of the family.  In the present case, the
time is "now" -- the orbits are currently lined up.  The question is, for
how long does that precise alignment persist, which should give a measure
of the maximum time since separation.

Cheers,

Alan

At 03:54 PM 1/2/2008, Brian Skiff wrote:
>      Are the orbital arcs long enough that integrations over
>umpteen thousand years has any meaning?  And would it help if
>there were archive plates available measure to extend the arcs
>back a few more decades?  (The plates are certainly around,
>but identifying them and getting them measured to a high standard
>is the hard part.)
>
>
>\Brian

*******************************************************************
Alan W. Harris
Senior Research Scientist
Space Science Institute
4603 Orange Knoll Ave.          Phone:  818-790-8291
La Canada, CA 91011-3364        email:  awharris@...
*******************************************************************

Wo, I'm impressed at how quickly people on this list resond with useful
contributions.  A longer arc can't hurt, but as I mentioned in my post to
Brian Skiff, the present arcs are long enough to investigate the question
of how rapidly these two orbits diverge from their current state of
near-coincidence.

Cheers,

Alan

At 04:14 PM 1/2/2008, Reiner M. Stoss wrote:
> > 2004 TV14 (due to fainter H) on much less plates:
> > 1993 08 17, A0PJ
>
>Checked the plate. Nice trail and easily measurable.
>That will extend the 2001-2004 to 1993-2004 for 2004 TV14.
>
>http://www.minorplanets.org/misc/2004_TV14_1993_08_17.jpg
>
>Is anyone going to measure all those plates?
>Tell me if not, and I'll do it later today...
>
>Reiner
>
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with
>the stipulation that MPML and the originating author are cited as the
>source of the information.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

*******************************************************************
Alan W. Harris
Senior Research Scientist
Space Science Institute
4603 Orange Knoll Ave.          Phone:  818-790-8291
La Canada, CA 91011-3364        email:  awharris@...
*******************************************************************

Nice job, Reiner, tracking down an image that nicely shows 2004 TV14.
Since you've already got a good head start, please feel free to submit
as much (or as little) as you'd like on 2004 TV14.  You've got more
experience than I do when it comes to measuring DSS/DSS2 plates, and I
have only limited experience with USNO/POSSI plate scans.

As for the 1993-08-17 DSS2 plate, SkyMorph wasn't even giving me a hit
for XJ471. (?)  --Rob

-----Original Message-----
From:
sentto-1806591-20241-1199319303-matsonr=saic.com@...
m
[mailto:sentto-1806591-20241-1199319303-matsonr=saic.com@....
yahoo.com] On Behalf Of Reiner M. Stoss
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:15 PM
To: mpml@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: {MPML} (63440) 2001 MD30 and 2004 TV14

> 2004 TV14 (due to fainter H) on much less plates:
> 1993 08 17, A0PJ

Checked the plate. Nice trail and easily measurable.
That will extend the 2001-2004 to 1993-2004 for 2004 TV14.

http://www.minorplanets.org/misc/2004_TV14_1993_08_17.jpg

Is anyone going to measure all those plates?
Tell me if not, and I'll do it later today...

Reiner

Out of curiosity I ran a plate-search for (63440) against the
catalogue we have to see what other plates might show the asteroid.
A considerably trimmed version of the report is copied below.  Except for
the POSS-II plates, I think none of these plates are scanned nor readily
available, which explains the comment I made earlier.  I would be able to
measure images on a number of these sets of data, but we have contributed
our venerable PDS machine to the local landfill.
      Comments are added to some of the groups of plates. I note that
(63440) was picked up by LONEOS on 12 nights in the MPC dataset,
but our catalogue shows nine additional nights on which the asteroid
should be present but evidently not picked up by the software.
Data recovery problematic for those, too, though since it's all recent,
it will not have much value.
      From the list below, it seems it would be possible to extend the arc
back to 1958 at least, and fill in many intermediate apparitions using
the 18-inch Palomar Schmidt films.
      The Harvard, Sonneberg, Odessa, etc plate collections are not
included, so there's bound to be a lot more out there, but catalogues etc
hardly exist for such collections (though see:  http://www.skyarchive.org
for links).  The Lowell 'Pluto Camera' plates were included in the search,
but there were no plates with the asteroid.


\Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plate search for:  63440 01MD30

Against: Goethe-Link Catalog
      This plate collection is located at Lowell.  The asteroid appears on
more of the plates, but the predicted magnitude is almost/quite certainly
too faint for it to show up.

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  H-3783    0 38.63 +20 16.5  1958 11  5.02743   59.0  8x10    0 40 31.163   19
26 12.77  17.85
  H-3784    0 38.63 +20 16.5  1958 11  5.07500   60.0  8x10    0 40 30.182   19
25  3.51  17.85




Against: Palomar Sky Survey II

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  SJ00249   1 30.75 +25 15.4  1985 10 16.32986   60.0 14x14    1 24 34.622   28 
5 23.77  17.60   Schombert/Mueller R  non-uniform
  SF03469  19  2.28 +15  4.3  1990  8 18.21320   60.0 14x14   19 12 52.138   12
44  1.17  18.96   Mueller/Mendenhal B  high fog




Against: Shoemaker 18" Schmidt
      The Shoemaker films are also located at Lowell.  The magnitude limit
is such that the asteroid should appear on every one of these exposures.

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
35+D      20 24.14 +19 56.8  1982  8 20.22639    4.0  3x 3   20 27  1.215   20
11 11.80  18.68
35+D      20 24.14 +19 56.8  1982  8 20.25069    4.0  3x 3   20 26 59.790   20
10 59.76  18.68
53-03     12 33.78 - 9 27.1  1984  5 26.20833    4.0  3x 3   12 27 17.063  -12 
9 13.47  19.25
53-03     12 33.78 - 9 27.1  1984  5 26.22917    4.0  3x 3   12 27 17.563  -12 
8 58.14  19.25
53-03     12 33.78 - 9 27.1  1984  5 27.20833    4.0  3x 3   12 27 44.175  -11
57 10.32  19.28
53-03     12 33.78 - 9 27.1  1984  5 27.22917    4.0  3x 3   12 27 44.711  -11
56 55.41  19.28
53-03     12 33.78 - 9 27.1  1984  5 28.17778    4.0  3x 3   12 28 12.140  -11
45 48.87  19.30
53-03     12 33.78 - 9 27.1  1984  5 28.20347    4.0  3x 3   12 28 12.840  -11
45 31.04  19.30
10+12      1 39.13 +36 32.6  1985  9 15.45712    4.0  3x 3    1 44  5.430   34
23 54.97  18.50
10+12      1 39.13 +36 32.6  1985  9 15.48299    4.0  3x 3    1 44  5.096   34
23 49.02  18.50
11+09      2  1.76 +32  7.3  1985  9 17.46146    4.0  3x 3    1 43 41.878   34
15 33.20  18.44
11+09      2  1.76 +32  7.3  1985  9 17.48715    4.0  3x 3    1 43 41.430   34
15 25.71  18.44
09+09      1 31.31 +29 24.9  1985 10 12.39358    4.0  3x 3    1 28  6.906   29
24  0.11  17.70
09+09      1 31.31 +29 24.9  1985 10 12.42066    4.0  3x 3    1 28  5.361   29
23 28.98  17.70
09+09      1 31.31 +29 24.9  1985 10 14.39271    4.0  3x 3    1 26 19.329   28
45  4.09  17.65
09+09      1 31.31 +29 24.9  1985 10 14.42170    4.0  3x 3    1 26 17.659   28
44 28.90  17.65
06+06      1  7.12 +20  9.0  1985 11  7.26476    4.0  3x 3    1  8 20.360   19
17  7.03  17.70
06+06      1  7.12 +20  9.0  1985 11  7.29358    4.0  3x 3    1  8 19.466   19
16 23.85  17.70
71+03     17  4.49 -17 29.4  1987  4 23.44774    4.0  3x 3   17  5 31.575  -18 
1 30.38  19.10
71+03     17  4.49 -17 29.4  1987  4 23.47604    4.0  3x 3   17  5 30.971  -18 
1  8.48  19.10
70+06     16 49.83 -10 46.9  1987  5 28.39045    4.0  3x 3   16 35 39.190   -9
31 20.24  18.31
70+06     16 49.83 -10 46.9  1987  5 28.42795    4.0  3x 3   16 35 36.433   -9
30 47.70  18.31
68+06     16 22.29 - 8 44.5  1987  6  1.37153    4.0  3x 3   16 30 56.679   -8
35 16.59  18.34
68+06     16 22.29 - 8 44.5  1987  6  1.40469    4.0  3x 3   16 30 54.251   -8
34 49.21  18.34
67+09     16  9.84 - 3 28.0  1987  6 21.24722    4.0  3x 3   16 10 21.345   -4
52 44.39  18.80
67+09     16  9.84 - 3 28.0  1987  6 21.27656    4.0  3x 3   16 10 19.833   -4
52 29.83  18.80
67+09     16  9.84 - 3 28.0  1987  6 24.20208    4.0  3x 3   16  8  4.473   -4
29 42.51  18.88
67+09     16  9.84 - 3 28.0  1987  6 24.23819    4.0  3x 3   16  8  2.804   -4
29 26.68  18.88
86+12     20 23.18 + 5 20.6  1990  5 24.45399    4.0  3x 3   20 14 46.163    3
30  1.52  19.61
84+12     20  0.35 + 3 19.9  1990  5 25.45816    3.0  3x 3   20 14 59.251    3
46 36.37  19.59
03+15     23 48.85 +31 43.7  1993  8 16.38837    8.0  3x 3    0  1  3.586   32
51 40.16  18.93
03+15     23 48.85 +31 43.7  1993  8 16.41597    8.0  3x 3    0  1  3.283   32
51 50.02  18.93
03+15     23 48.85 +31 43.7  1993  8 17.33941    8.0  3x 3    0  0 55.363   32
57  6.81  18.91
03+15     23 48.85 +31 43.7  1993  8 17.36736    8.0  3x 3    0  0 55.009   32
57 16.35  18.91
00+12     23 20.19 +23  5.5  1993 10 11.24358    8.0  3x 3   23 22 56.227   24
57  5.26  18.04   clouds
00+12     23 20.19 +23  5.5  1993 10 13.20313    8.0  3x 3   23 21 59.547   24
13 43.38  18.05
00+12     23 20.19 +23  5.5  1993 10 13.24062    8.0  3x 3   23 21 58.403   24
12 53.29  18.05
00+12     23 20.19 +23  5.5  1993 10 15.13819    8.0  3x 3   23 21 11.669   23
30 17.89  18.08
00+12     23 20.19 +23  5.5  1993 10 15.16892    8.0  3x 3   23 21 10.874   23
29 36.58  18.08




Against: Helin 18" Schmidt
      I do not know the disposition of these films; perhaps in a warehouse
somewhere at JPL?  Again the asteroid should show up on the films where it
is brighter than mag 18.5-19.

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
           14  5.20 -22 17.3  1976  4 25.31866    0.0  3x 3   14  0 24.740  -22
36  1.26  18.11
            3 28.56 +18 50.3  1977 11  8.33779    0.0  3x 3    3 21 41.791   18
51  3.02  17.10
            3  9.33 +18  0.4  1977 11  9.32174    0.0  3x 3    3 20 40.864   18
27  4.65  17.05
            3  9.33 +18  0.4  1977 11 10.31901    0.0  3x 3    3 19 38.724   18 
2 39.42  17.00
           17 56.61 - 7 44.3  1979  5 22.40719    0.0  3x 3   17 57 36.511   -6
54  3.19  18.82
           17 56.61 - 7 44.3  1979  5 23.40446    0.0  3x 3   17 56 46.317   -6
39 20.40  18.80
           17 56.61 - 7 44.3  1979  5 24.40173    0.0  3x 3   17 55 54.360   -6
24 41.38  18.78
           21  1.58 +20  4.8  1982  7 23.36525    0.0  3x 3   20 56 42.062   20
57 40.07  18.83
           21  1.58 +20  4.8  1982  7 25.35979    0.0  3x 3   20 54 40.094   21 
7  9.05  18.80
           12 29.68 - 8 52.6  1984  6 22.09397    0.0  3x 3   12 47 56.754   -8
36 42.41  19.85
            2 41.00 +10 47.8  1986  2 10.04802    0.0  3x 3    2 41 55.691    6
18 17.01  19.74
           17 18.72 -17 57.1  1987  4 30.44084    0.0  3x 3   17  2 25.139  -16
27 26.79  18.92
           19 47.88 +10 41.5  1990  6 27.38503    0.0  3x 3   20  4 15.152   11
54  5.82  18.97
           20 14.67 +11 57.2  1990  6 28.40085    0.0  3x 3   20  3 22.916   12 
5 32.74  18.95
           19 47.88 +10 41.5  1990  6 29.37957    0.0  3x 3   20  2 31.151   12
16 15.33  18.93
           20 14.67 +11 57.2  1990  6 29.39812    0.0  3x 3   20  2 30.105   12
16 27.32  18.93
           19 38.76 +11 21.9  1990  7 18.32138    0.0  3x 3   19 42 15.220   14
30 23.38  18.74
           19 47.88 +10 41.5  1990  7 18.32769    0.0  3x 3   19 42 14.759   14
30 24.51  18.74
           19 35.86 +16 20.7  1990  7 19.31664    0.0  3x 3   19 41  5.374   14
33  8.07  18.74
           19 38.76 +11 21.9  1990  7 21.31318    0.0  3x 3   19 38 45.401   14
37 15.77  18.73



Against: Asiago Observ. Catalog
      The asteroid is possibly too faint to show up on any of these
plates.  I think a scanning project is proposed (at least) for the
Asiago plates, but I don't know the status.

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
    421    23 20.53 + 8 16.4  1966 12  3.25833   20.0  8x 8   23 30 49.499    8
20 20.84  19.19
  12917     1 35.85 +33 15.4  1985  8 13.04931   20.0  8x 8    1 29 23.442   32
54 49.28  19.33
  12937     1 35.85 +33 15.4  1985  8 16.99931   30.0  8x 8    1 32 56.999   33
22 36.93  19.25
  13041     1 35.85 +33 15.4  1985  9 21.00556   30.0  8x 8    1 42 38.418   33
55 41.64  18.33



Against: UK Schmidt Catalog

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  J 9330   12 22.58 -10 16.6  1984  5 28.45420   60.0 14x14   12 28 20.343  -11
42 31.17  19.31
OR12913    7  2.37 -10  4.4  1989  1  8.59656   63.0 14x14    6 53  3.749  -13 
9 16.37  18.00



Against: ESO Catalog
      The earlier of these is one of the 'Quick Blue Survey' plates,
none of which is scanned, alas.

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  B 1453   13 58.72 -25  9.6  1976  4 21.56184   60.0 14x14   14  4 21.568  -23
44 19.07  18.16
  J 9909P  11 24.08 -25 23.5  1992  3 28.53059   75.0 14x14   11 13 40.034  -25
52 36.75  18.38

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news154.html

New Observations Slightly Decrease Mars Impact Probability
Don Yeomans, Paul Chodas and Steve Chesley
NASA/JPL Near-Earth Object Program Office
January 2, 2008

Additional position observations for asteroid 2007 WD5 taken on December
29 through January 2 have been used to improve the accuracy of the
asteroid's orbit. As a result, the range of possible paths past Mars has
narrowed by a factor of 3 and the most likely path has moved a little
farther away from the planet, causing the Mars impact probability to
decrease slightly to 3.6% (about one chance in 28). The new positional
observations were made using the 2.4 meter telescope at New Mexico
Tech's Magdalena Ridge Observatory and reported by astronomer Bill Ryan.
It seems likely that as additional observations further shrink the
uncertainty region of this asteroid, the region will no longer intersect
Mars and the impact probability will quickly drop to zero.

[Graphic]
Updated Uncertainty Region for 2007 WD5 at encounter with Mars, shown as
white dots. The thin white line is the orbit of Mars. The blue line
traces the motion of the center of the uncertainty region, which is the
most likely position of the asteroid. Note that the scale is
considerably finer than it has been in past diagrams

A similar plate-search for 2004 TV14.  This is an altogether fainter
object, so it was too faint for any of the 18-inch Palomar Schmidt series
or Pluto Camera plates, and will be marginal at best on a lot of the "big"
Schmidt plates.  For instance the UK Schmidt 'short V' plate (plate number
VJ 6820) will have a limit of about B ~18.5 at best, and some of the other
short exposures are almost certainly not worth seeking.  It looks as though
the best we could do here is some intermediate apparitions and the 1976
two-nighter, again from the unscanned ESO 'Quick Blue Survey' plates.
      Rather than any specific action, the main point here is to note that
the publicly-available plate-scans and recent archives are a tiny fraction
of the extant data.

\Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plate search for:        04TV14

Against: Palomar Sky Survey II

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  SJ00248   0 46.66 +25 16.3  1985 10 16.27431   60.0 14x14    0 50  6.153   27
17 42.29  19.64   Schombert/Mueller R  non-uniform
  SJ03323  19 42.39 +10  7.1  1990  6 26.37535   55.0 14x14   19 46 34.028   10
24  3.65  20.88   Mueller/Mendenhal R  high density



Against: Asiago Observ. Catalog

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  13031     1 10.77 +33 16.0  1985  9 19.86458   30.0  8x 8    1 11 19.840   33
56 11.35  20.26
  13061     0 49.88 +27 42.7  1985 10 10.94375   20.0  8x 8    0 54 43.641   29 
9 27.94  19.71
  13087     0 49.88 +27 42.7  1985 10 17.98681   20.0  8x 8    0 48 41.190   26
39 12.43  19.63
  13147     0 50.62 +12 36.3  1985 12  2.85417   25.0  8x 8    0 45 25.043   10 
9 46.17  20.57
  13148     0 50.62 +12 36.3  1985 12  2.88542   30.0  8x 8    0 45 26.375   10 
9 19.87  20.57
  13151     0 42.60 +11 51.5  1985 12  3.75694   30.0  8x 8    0 46  6.513    9
57 19.25  20.59



Against: UK Schmidt Catalog

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  I 6743    7 42.29 -15  7.1  1981  2 22.49240   90.0 14x14    7 34  4.634  -16 
2 45.93  20.53
  R 6744    7 42.29 -15  7.1  1981  2 22.53893   15.0 14x14    7 34  3.791  -16 
2 10.65  20.53
  J 6803    7 22.28 -15  5.8  1981  3  6.43406   50.0 14x14    7 34  1.339  -13
23 45.84  20.77
  R 6804    7 22.28 -15  5.8  1981  3  6.50281   80.0 14x14    7 34  2.136  -13
22 49.16  20.77
VJ 6820    7 41.30 -14 49.1  1981  3 10.44725    5.0 14x14    7 35 17.985  -12
28 43.97  20.85
  I 6824    7 22.38 -10  5.8  1981  3 11.46045   90.0 14x14    7 35 43.221  -12
14 53.51  20.87
  R 6825    7 22.38 -10  5.8  1981  3 11.52226   15.0 14x14    7 35 44.679  -12
14  2.73  20.87
  R 6853    7 42.38 -10  7.1  1981  3 16.40351   15.0 14x14    7 38 19.284  -11 
8 10.34  20.97
JB10567T   0 33.59 +11  2.5  1985 12  4.45768   30.0 14x14    0 46 39.335    9
48  4.61  20.61
  R10568T   0 33.59 +11  2.5  1985 12  4.49031   40.0 14x14    0 46 40.804    9
47 38.53  20.61
  I11892   16 12.77 -12  7.6  1987  5 20.60836   10.6 14x14   16 24 13.460  -12
19 52.62  20.26
  I14773   11 32.48 -30 16.6  1992  2 13.69170   90.0 14x14   11 27  1.787  -31
22 54.49  20.78
  I14818   11  9.42 -30 16.3  1992  3 12.52781   90.0 14x14   11  1 58.251  -28
51  8.89  20.38



Against: ESO Catalog

   Plate     Plate Center        Plate Date      Exp   Size       RA  (2000.0) 
Dec         B
    ID        (J2000.0)              UT          Time
Mag
            h   m     d   m    yr  mo   da         m   inch    h  m   s       d 
m   s
  B 1439   13 50.86 -30  7.8  1976  4  4.60142   60.0 14x14   13 57 40.623  -28
13 40.08  20.47
  B 1499   13 20.70 -20 17.7  1976  5  2.50420   60.0 14x14   13 30 17.139  -20 
5  4.47  20.29
  B 7753    6 42.31 - 8  4.0  1988 12 15.62226   60.0 14x14    6 51 57.130   -6
36 25.32  19.91
  J 9907P  10 40.18 -25 19.7  1992  3 24.47712   75.0 14x14   10 51 28.466  -25
41  0.45  20.38
  J 9912P  10 40.18 -25 19.7  1992  3 29.49031   75.0 14x14   10 48  8.784  -24 
7 15.84  20.42
  J 9920P  10 32.31 -20 15.5  1992  4  2.46461   75.0 14x14   10 46  5.388  -22
49 43.28  20.48

http://hohmanntransfer.com/

The screenshot of the new program is pretty cool.  Click on More Shots
and do the mouse-over of the dates.

Carey

Taking into account all 34 observations of asteroid 2007WD5 up to January 2,
with the use of the OrbFit software and the multiple solution
method I have computed that about 150 clones of 2007WD5 from all 4,001
inside 3-
sigma have impact with Mars. Adding the normal distribution to my results,
the probability is about 3.7%, close to the JPL
result 3.6%.
Best regards,
Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
553 Chorzow

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrea Milani" <milani@...>
To: "wlodarczyk_i" <astrobit@...>
Cc: "Minor Planets Mailing List" <mpml@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: {MPML} Re: 2007 WD5? (potential Mars impactor)


>
> I apologize if this looks like the "foreign aid" logic pointed out by Alan
> Harris, but the fact is, we do not perform impact monitoring for other
> planets. In our CLOMON2 code there is a very brutal control
>
> ! input close approach data
>   despla='EARTH'
>   CALL masjpl
>   CALL inclolinctp(iunout,iunclo,despla,vas_trace,no,nox)
>   IF(no.le.0)THEN
>      WRITE(*,*)' NO CLOSE APPROACHES TO EARTH'
>      GOTO 99
>   ENDIF
>
> in such a way that close approaches to other planets are discarded. Yes, I
> could set "despla='MARS'", but then it would not work, that is, the
> software modifications would not be minor and we do not have manpower to
> do them (and test properly). The Mars Science Academy does not fund us to
> do this effort :-).
>
> However, as Ireneusz has shown, it is perfectly possible to use the OrbFit
> software to compute the possibility of an impact to Mars, and even to
> estimate the probability.
>
> The only thing I have done, on occasion of the discussion on 2007 WU5
> possible impact on Mars, is to remove an old fashioned computation which
> was done on NEODyS to provide the "Minimum Possible Distance" in the close
> approach table. Now the computation is correct (well, it is a better
> approximation using the MOID rather than a purely linear approach) and you
> can check on
>
> http://131.114.72.13/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2007WD5;main
>
> that the mimimum possible distance is estimated at less than the
> radius of Mars. By using the value of the stretching, and taking into
> account that the Virtual impactor corresponds to the nominal solution
> (where the probability density is maximum) you can get the value of the
> Impact Probability, that is the value given in Ireneusz's last message
> (and close to the JPL estimate).
>
> As for what will happen in reality, I am sorry but I have to remind to all
> on this list something which keeps beoing forgotten, namely that all
> probability estimates are skewed because of the scandal of the missing
> statistical error model. That is, the values shown on NEODyS (e.g,
> stretching 0.00062 AU) are computed using 1 arcsec weighing. This implies
> that the probabilities, for a VI near the nominal, are in fact
> underestimated, because the real stretching, using an accurate error
> model, would be significantly less.
>
> The only good news (apart from the good news for us/bad for Martians that
> the impact on Mars is more likely than announced) is that the work of Jim
> Baer has been progressing very well and in fact a rigorous statistical
> error model for asteroid astrometry will be available soon. Again, it is
> mostly a problem of manpower for us to implement and contribute to the
> testing of Baer's model, but thanks to some funding from the Italian Space
> Agency we have finally received (after 5 years of exactly zero funding) we
> will be able to have one new postodc working at NEODyS from Summer 2008,
> and this is one of the new things we hope to do.
>
> Yours Andrea
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, wlodarczyk_i wrote:
>
> > Adding the normal distribution to my results, i.e. to colliding
> > clones of 2007WD5 with Mars, the probability grows from 1.3 to 2.9%,
> > close to the JPL results.
> > Best regards,
> > Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
> > 553 Chorzow
> >
> > --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "wlodarczyk_i" <astrobit@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > With the use of the OrbFit software and the multiple solution
> > method
> > > I have computed
> > > that about 630 clones of 2007WD5 from all 50,000 (1.3%) inside 3-
> > > sigma have impact with Mars.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
> > > 553 Chorzow
> > >
> > > --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, Aldo Vitagliano <alvitagl@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Based on 23 of 25 observations that are reported today by the
> > > NeoDys
> > > > database, I have MonteCarlo generated 1000 clones of the object
> > > using my
> > > > software Exorb. The dispersion along the line of variation is
> > > rather large,
> > > > due to high covariance between the elements. An impact
> > probability
> > > of 2.5%
> > > > is presently estimated (25 out of 1000 clones do actually impact
> > > Mars on
> > > > january 30)
> > > > A picture of the probability "cloud" at the moment of Mars
> > > > encounter,projected onto the ecliptic, is given at the link
> > below.
> > > > Regards
> > > > Aldo Vitagliano
> > > >
> > > > http://www.webalice.it/alvitagl/Figures/MarsImp.gif
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aldo Vitagliano
> > > > Dip. di Chimica, Universita' di Napoli
> > > > Complesso Universitario di M.S. Angelo, via
> > > Cintia
> > > > I-80126 Napoli, Italy
> > > > tel. +39-081674462
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ================================================
> Andrea Milani Comparetti
> Dipartimento di Matematica
> Piazzale B. Pontecorvo 5
> 56127 PISA ITALY
>
> tel. +39-050-2213254 fax +39-050-2213224
> cellular phone +39-349-4482751
> E-mail: milani@...
> WWW: http://copernico.dm.unipi.it/~milani/
> ================================================
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1198 - Release Date:
2007-12-26 17:26
>
>

Taking into account all 34 observations of asteroid 2007WD5 up to
January 2, with the use of the OrbFit software and the multiple
solution method I have computed that about 150 clones of 2007WD5
from all 4,001 inside 3-sigma have impact with Mars. Adding the
normal distribution to my results the probability is about 3.7%,
close to the JPL result 3.6%.
Best regards,
Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
553 Chorzow
-

--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, Ron Baalke <baalke@...> wrote:
>
>
> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news154.html
>
> New Observations Slightly Decrease Mars Impact Probability
> Don Yeomans, Paul Chodas and Steve Chesley
> NASA/JPL Near-Earth Object Program Office
> January 2, 2008
>
> Additional position observations for asteroid 2007 WD5 taken on
December
> 29 through January 2 have been used to improve the accuracy of the
> asteroid's orbit. As a result, the range of possible paths past
Mars has
> narrowed by a factor of 3 and the most likely path has moved a
little
> farther away from the planet, causing the Mars impact probability
to
> decrease slightly to 3.6% (about one chance in 28). The new
positional
> observations were made using the 2.4 meter telescope at New Mexico
> Tech's Magdalena Ridge Observatory and reported by astronomer Bill
Ryan.
> It seems likely that as additional observations further shrink the
> uncertainty region of this asteroid, the region will no longer
intersect
> Mars and the impact probability will quickly drop to zero.
>
> [Graphic]
> Updated Uncertainty Region for 2007 WD5 at encounter with Mars,
shown as
> white dots. The thin white line is the orbit of Mars. The blue line
> traces the motion of the center of the uncertainty region, which
is the
> most likely position of the asteroid. Note that the scale is
> considerably finer than it has been in past diagrams
>

Can someone please check if the time of closest approach has indeed
changed from about 10:55 UT to about 11:35 UT using the latest set of
observations?

--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Ireneusz Wlodarczyk" wrote:
>
> Taking into account all 34 observations of asteroid 2007WD5 up to
January 2,
> with the use of the OrbFit software and the multiple solution
> method I have computed that about 150 clones of 2007WD5 from all 4,001
> inside 3-
> sigma have impact with Mars. Adding the normal distribution to my
results,
> the probability is about 3.7%, close to the JPL
> result 3.6%.
> Best regards,
> Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
> 553 Chorzow

--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Bamm Gabriana" <bamm@...> wrote:
>
> Can someone please check if the time of closest approach has indeed
> changed from about 10:55 UT to about 11:35 UT using the latest set of
> observations?
>

With all 34 observations taken in account
My own nominal solution says 12h 27m 55s UT
Neodys nominal solution says 12h 27m 33s UT

Aldo Vitagliano

Two questions that are quite relevant to any effort to monitor Mars for a
potential
impact.

I assume that the putative time of impact is calculated by reference to a plane
through
the centre of Mars that is normal to the asteroid's motion. And that motion is
presumably
quite different to the Mars-Earth direction.

1. If the impact (unlikely as it is) was to be 'head-on' with Mars, how much
earlier would
it occur? That is, what is the time range over which monitoring would need to
occur?
Presumably the time scale is a number of minutes.... (ignoring the base
uncertainty in the
predicted time).

2. With the various probability calculations, I'm assuming that the potential
impact area
on Mars is to one side. Assuming that a grazing impact did in fact occur, will
the impact
site would be visible from the Earth? Or will it be 'behind' the limb of Mars at
the time
of impact.

Both these issues must be computable on the basis of the current predictions -
and it
would be good to see some info about these issues. Mars will be well placed for
monitoring
at my location - and it would help to know the time frame to record to video,
and whether
it is likely the impact will be on the exposed face of Mars.


Dave Herald
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Aldo Vitagliano" <alvitagl@...>
To: <mpml@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 12:16 AM
Subject: {MPML} Re: 2007 WD5? (potential Mars impactor)


> --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Bamm Gabriana" <bamm@...> wrote:
>>
>> Can someone please check if the time of closest approach has indeed
>> changed from about 10:55 UT to about 11:35 UT using the latest set of
>> observations?
>>
>
> With all 34 observations taken in account
> My own nominal solution says 12h 27m 55s UT
> Neodys nominal solution says 12h 27m 33s UT
>
> Aldo Vitagliano
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with the
stipulation
> that MPML and the originating author are cited as the source of the
information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

...and mine solution with the use of the OrbFit: 12:29 UT,
Best regards,
Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
553 Chorzow

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Aldo Vitagliano
   To: mpml@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:16 PM
   Subject: {MPML} Re: 2007 WD5? (potential Mars impactor)


   --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Bamm Gabriana" <bamm@...> wrote:
   >
   > Can someone please check if the time of closest approach has indeed
   > changed from about 10:55 UT to about 11:35 UT using the latest set of
   > observations?
   >

   With all 34 observations taken in account
   My own nominal solution says 12h 27m 55s UT
   Neodys nominal solution says 12h 27m 33s UT

   Aldo Vitagliano






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
   Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1198 - Release Date: 2007-12-26
17:26


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

...but the potential impacts of clones of 2007WD5 with Mars may
occur between 10:53 and 11:11 UT.
Best regards,
Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
553 Chorzow


--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Bamm Gabriana" <bamm@...> wrote:
>
> Can someone please check if the time of closest approach has indeed
> changed from about 10:55 UT to about 11:35 UT using the latest set
of
> observations?
>
> --- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Ireneusz Wlodarczyk" wrote:
> >
> > Taking into account all 34 observations of asteroid 2007WD5 up to
> January 2,
> > with the use of the OrbFit software and the multiple solution
> > method I have computed that about 150 clones of 2007WD5 from all
4,001
> > inside 3-
> > sigma have impact with Mars. Adding the normal distribution to my
> results,
> > the probability is about 3.7%, close to the JPL
> > result 3.6%.
> > Best regards,
> > Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
> > 553 Chorzow
>

Aldo Vitagliano wrote:
> I am not expert in probability and statistics, but I would say that a
> probability estimate which is so crucially dependent on two
> observations lying among others in the middle of the observational
> arc is in itself very uncertain. In other words, it seems to me that
> even the error estimate is affected by a large error ... :-)

Probability is a summary of what you know or think you know
(i.e., assume).

It is not a property of a macroscopic object, like mass or
dimension. 2007 WD5 is completely unchanged as various
probabilities are estimated for it, since those probabilities
are artifacts of human thought.

Probability estimates are thus subject to every problem
associated with knowing and thinking -- simultaneously.
The mathematics of the calculation only track/rationalize
a-priori knowing and thinking.

If one perfects a probability estimate for a subject, it
means one has perfected knowing and thinking about the
subject.

Possible with simple closed-systems (card games and dice),
otherwise not. Asteroidal motion comes closer than usual
to a simple closed system, but still isn't.

The distance between two asteroids (63440) 2001 MD30 and 2004 TV14
decreases almost linear from about 50 mln km to 10 mln km in the
time span -3000 B.C., +3000 A.D.
The computations were made with the use of the OrbFit software.
Best regards,
Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
553 Chorzow

--- In mpml@yahoogroups.com, "Matson, Robert D." <matsonr@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> My software has turned up another pair of asteroids (Hungarias this
> time) in essentially the same orbit:
>
> (63440) 2001 MD30
> Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT = JDT 2454400.5
> T = 2454355.22070 JDT
> M  16.53908            (2000.0)          P             Q
> n   0.36526793   Peri.  205.56087   +0.27695922   -0.92502409
> a   1.9381841    Node   229.53583   +0.92980918   +0.32626860
> e   0.0886214    Incl.   19.98663   +0.24238085   -0.19462589
> P   2.70           H   15.2         G   0.15         U   1
> q =     1.7664194
> Earth MOID = 0.78748 AU
> From 157 observations at 6 oppositions, 1977-2003, mean residual
0".61.
>
> 2004 TV14
> Epoch 2007 Oct. 27.0 TT = JDT 2454400.5
> T = 2454364.02857 JDT
> M  13.32189            (2000.0)          P             Q
> n   0.36526925   Peri.  205.58023   +0.27665243   -0.92511665
> a   1.9381794    Node   229.53546   +0.92991763   +0.32595948
> e   0.0886220    Incl.   19.98653   +0.24231514   -0.19470387
> P   2.70           H   17.2         G   0.15         U   3
> q =     1.7664140
> Earth MOID = 0.78749 AU
> From 43 observations at 3 oppositions, 2001-2004, mean residual
0".58.
>
> These two had to have parted ways quite recently for their orbits
> to still be so similar.  This is the first pair of multi-opposition
> asteroids I've found that have a D-criterion < .0001.  --Rob
>

If I understand correctly, the separation is decreasing with time.  If so,
what happens at about 4500 A.D. (it's "politically correct" to use "C.E."
instead of "A.D." these days), when the linear extrapolation would go to zero?

Another uncertainty in this calculation, aside from uncertainty in the
orbital elements, is the Yarkovsky effect on such small bodies over millennia.

Alan

At 12:35 PM 1/3/2008, wlodarczyk_i wrote:
>The distance between two asteroids (63440) 2001 MD30 and 2004 TV14
>decreases almost linear from about 50 mln km to 10 mln km in the
>time span -3000 B.C., +3000 A.D.
>The computations were made with the use of the OrbFit software.
>Best regards,
>Ireneusz Wlodarczyk
>553 Chorzow

*******************************************************************
Alan W. Harris
Senior Research Scientist
Space Science Institute
4603 Orange Knoll Ave.          Phone:  818-790-8291
La Canada, CA 91011-3364        email:  awharris@...
*******************************************************************

Not bad for a bunch of oxygen and sleep deprived astronomy nerds
(actually I think it's really well done).

Now playing on You Tube:  "Hotel Mauna Kea"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPdTlHK1h_0

patrick

Not bad! So when does the album come out? :-)

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: mpml@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpml@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick
Wiggins
Sent: Friday, 4 January 2008 10:43 AM
To: mpml (list) mpml
Subject: {MPML} Hotel Mauna Kea

Not bad for a bunch of oxygen and sleep deprived astronomy nerds
(actually I think it's really well done).

Now playing on You Tube:  "Hotel Mauna Kea"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPdTlHK1h_0

patrick