Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 'Oumuamua, possible internal composition?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523

    'Oumuamua, possible internal composition?

    We know that our Strange Visitor is tumbling, and we know how fast, so is it possible to determine a minimum possible material strength working from that? Combine that with the tarry Carbon laden surface spectra, and we might come up with a rough framework of possible interior material compositions.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,163
    "It has significant elongation and rotation rate, so it is thought to be metal-rich with a relatively high density."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua

    Not sure how much more we might glean.

    But really, it's only rotating every 8 hours. And only 230 metres long. It wouldn't have to be very strong to overcome such forces.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2018-Oct-01 at 02:28 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    539
    How long have we had the capability and sky coverage to detect objects like Oumuamua?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,163
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    How long have we had the capability and sky coverage to detect objects like Oumuamua?
    It's less to do with 'capability' and much more to do with luck.
    We can certainly image such things, but we are not scanning the entire sky all the time. There might be other objects in our SS right now, that we could resolve, but just don't happen to be pointing the right scope in the right direction at the right time.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    It's less to do with 'capability' and much more to do with luck.
    We can certainly image such things, but we are not scanning the entire sky all the time. There might be other objects in our SS right now, that we could resolve, but just don't happen to be pointing the right scope in the right direction at the right time.
    To put the question in terms of your chances, what I'm asking is what were the chances of Oumuamua being detected in 2017 when it was, compared to the chances of a similar object being detected, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 50 years ago? Were the chances in 2017 twice as high as in 2012? 20% higher? Were the chances of detection in 2017 10 times higher than they were 20 years ago? That is the nature of my question.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    539
    It says on Wikipedia that objects like Oumuamua should pass inside Earth's orbit several times a year and that there are probably 10,000 such objects inside the orbit of Neptune at any given time.

    Is that true?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,808
    could its mass be at all determined by any deviation in its orbit due to solar wind? Would the difference in orbit due to inertia vs solar windforce be measurable?
    Formerly Frog march.

    Newscaster: ... But I've just had a report that a representative of Disaster Area met with the environmentalists this morning and had them all shot, so now nothing stands in the way of the concert going ahead this afternoon on this beautiful sunny day.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    It says on Wikipedia that objects like Oumuamua should pass inside Earth's orbit several times a year and that there are probably 10,000 such objects inside the orbit of Neptune at any given time.

    Is that true?
    I could not find the statement you refer to in the wikipedia article on Oumuamua. It is likely referring to the presence of small asteroids and comets that are a part of the solar system and definitely not to interstellar visitors such as Oumuamua. Can you pinpoint which portion of which article you found the statement in?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclogite View Post
    I could not find the statement you refer to in the wikipedia article on Oumuamua. It is likely referring to the presence of small asteroids and comets that are a part of the solar system and definitely not to interstellar visitors such as Oumuamua. Can you pinpoint which portion of which article you found the statement in?
    I cannot speak for Wikipedia, but see here for a reference to a paper that does in fact mention 10,000 interstellar objects inside Neptune’s orbit. I have not kept up to date since to see if that paper might have been refuted, rejected or challenged.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclogite View Post
    I could not find the statement you refer to in the wikipedia article on Oumuamua. It is likely referring to the presence of small asteroids and comets that are a part of the solar system and definitely not to interstellar visitors such as Oumuamua. Can you pinpoint which portion of which article you found the statement in?
    It's the very last sentence in the article. Source they cite is a BBC television program.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    539
    Does anybody know by how much it is accelerating compared to what is expected from gravity?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,339
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    I cannot speak for Wikipedia, but see here for a reference to a paper that does in fact mention 10,000 interstellar objects inside Neptune’s orbit. I have not kept up to date since to see if that paper might have been refuted, rejected or challenged.
    The number density estimate is based on this one detection. OK that is better than no information at all, but there are still enormous uncertainties attached to it.

    Also this is the density of interstellar objects greater than 100 metres. There should be even more smaller ones.

    What does that mean for interstellar travel? It sounds like it could be a lot more hazardous than envisaged with all these rocks floating around?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,874
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    The number density estimate is based on this one detection. OK that is better than no information at all, but there are still enormous uncertainties attached to it.
    Of course. But the number on Wikipedia was not in error in the sense that something else was meant, thus "definitely not to interstellar visitors" was not correct. It's no biggie to me, I just remembered reading, being surprised about, and linking to the paper before.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    I cannot speak for Wikipedia, but see here for a reference to a paper that does in fact mention 10,000 interstellar objects inside Neptune’s orbit. I have not kept up to date since to see if that paper might have been refuted, rejected or challenged.
    As I posted my query on the number I said to myself "why are you using the word definitely. You know better than to make absolute statements. You'll just get egg on your face." But I ignored the implicit advice. Thank you for the link. Definitely interesting, though I am always skeptical of extrapolating from a single instance.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,368
    Here is a paper that says there are probably 10 trillion (with a TR) interstellar comets per cubic interstellar parsec.


    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bi...J.....92..171T

    Capture of 20 km/s approach velocity interstellar comets by three-body interactions in the planetary system

    Torbett, M. V.
    Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 92, July 1986, p. 171-175. (07/1986)

    Interstellar comets with velocities at infinity of 20 km s-1 can be captured by three-body interactions within the planetary system. A semianalytic method is presented indicating that Jupiter is the only planet capable of scattering these comets into bound orbits. The time-averaged cross section for this process seems to be roughly five times the area of Jupiter. With an observational upper limit on interstellar comets of ≡ 10^13 [per cubic parsec], the resulting capture rate amounts to only one comet every 60 Myr.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •