On 8/30/06, Keith Old <keithold(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/31/06, ScottL <scott(a)mu.org> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/08/06, Daniel Mayer
<maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not a good idea since that is all we know about most asteroids and
those data
would be far more
> useful in a big table of asteroids, not on
individual pages for each
space rock.
In fact,
the basics are already in the List of asteroids tables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroids_%2839001-40000%29
We can just add to the table.
Excellent! So what we need then is a forest of redirects.
- d.
Ok, this is an even better idea. I am a strong believer in the idea
that 50 articles that have no hope of ever becoming more than a stub can
(sometimes) make a single good article. We might want to add links to
the various online DB's that are essentially the primary sources for
most of this as well. I think most of the major astro catalogs are
available online now days.
SKL
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
I would be happy with that if we don't have a lot of information
about them.
I suspect that over time with researchers working on studies of these
bodies
more information will become available about them and we will be able to
expand some of them into legitimate articles.
Regards
*Keith Old*
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not an asteroids expert, but I follow the Minor Planets Mailing List,
IAU announcements, and new discoveries fairly closely. For most of the
umpteen-tens-of-thousands of objects, all we essentially have are orbital
elements, some sighting dates and positions, a magnitude, spectra, and
deduced size and class. In some cases, there's not even a spectrum or
officially deduced size or class.
Various spacecraft missions are planned to get a whole lot more data on some
of the more interesting ones, and distant remote observation programs are
being considered which would fill in a lot of the gaps now in basic
magnitude / spectrum / orbital path details to high precision / etc. But
it's going to be hard. Most of these are far enough away and small enough
that they're only at best roughly pixel sized for Hubble or even the Next
Generation Space Telescope, so getting a "better picture" necessarily means
a spacecraft, and at tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars per
spacecraft, the fraction of asteroids we'll visit up close in the next few
decades seems likely to be small.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com