Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:07:39.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Near-Earth-Object identification over apparitions using n-body ranging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2006

Mikael Granvik  and
Karri Muinonen
Mikael Granvik
Affiliation:
Observatory, P.O. Box 14, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland email: mikael.granvik@helsinki.fi
Karri Muinonen
Affiliation:
Observatory, P.O. Box 14, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland email: mikael.granvik@helsinki.fi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Under ideal conditions, Earth-based telescopes can observe near-Earth objects (NEOs) continuously from a few days to months during each apparition. Due to the usually complicated dynamics of the Sun-Earth-NEO triplet, the time interval between consecutive apparitions typically ranges from months to several years. On these time scales, exiguous single-apparition sets (SASs) of observations having short observational time-intervals lead to substantial orbital uncertainties. Linking of SASs over apparitions thus becomes a nontrivial task. For example, of a total of roughly 4,100 NEO observation sets, or orbits, currently known, some 2,300 are SASs, for which the observational time interval is less than 180 days. Either these SASs have not been observed at an apparition following the discovery apparition or the linkage of SASs has failed, an option which should preferably be eliminated. As a continuation to our work on the short-arc linking problem at the discovery moment (Granvik & Muinonen, 2005, Icarus 179, 109), we have investigated the possibility of using a similar method for linking exiguous SASs over apparitions. Assuming that the observational time-interval for SASs of NEOs is typically at least one day (minimum requirement set by the Minor Planet Center), the orbital-element probability-density function is constrained as compared to the typical short-arc case with an observational time interval of only a few tens of minutes. Because of the smaller orbital-element uncertainty, we can use the short-arc method (comparison in ephemeris space) for longer time spans, or even do the comparison directly in the orbital-element space (Cartesian, Keplerian, equinoctial, etc.), thus allowing us to assess the problem of linking SASs of NEOs. Due to possible close approaches with the Earth and other planets, and substantial propagation intervals, we have developed new n-body techniques for the orbit computation.

Keywords

Identificationstatistical methodsdata analysis
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 2 , Symposium S236: Near Earth Objects, our Celestial Neighbors: Opportunity and Risk , August 2006 , pp. 281 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2007

References

Danby, J. M. A. 1992, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, 2. edn, Willman-Bell, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Granvik, M. & Muinonen, K. 2005, Icarus 179, 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granvik, M., Muinonen, K., Virtanen, J., Delbó, M., Saba, L., De Sanctis, G., Morbidelli, R., Cellino, A., & Tedesco, E. 2005, in: Knezević, Z. & Milani, A. (eds.), IAU Colloquium 197: Dynamics of Populations of Planetary Systems, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 231Google Scholar
Jedicke, R., Larsen, J. & Spahr, T. 2002, in: Bottke, W.F., Cellino, A., Paolicchi, P. & Binzel, R. P. (eds.), Asteroids III, University of Arizona Press, p. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, L. K. 1995, Astron. Nachr. 316 (4), 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muinonen, K. 1999, in: Steves, B. A. & Roy, A. E. (eds.), The Dynamics of Small Bodies in the Solar System, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Norwell, MA, p. 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muinonen, K., Virtanen, J. & Bowell, E. 2001, CMDA 81, 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muinonen, K., Virtanen, J., Granvik, M., & Laakso, T. 2005, in: Perryman, M. (ed.), Three-Dimensional Universe with Gaia, ESA Special Publications SP-576, Noordwijk, p. 223Google Scholar
Muinonen, K., Virtanen, J., Granvik, M., & Laakso, T. 2006, MNRAS 368 (2), 809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesvorny, D., BottkeJr., W. F. Jr., W. F., Dones, L., & Levison, H. F. 2002, Nature 417, 720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran The Art of Scientic Computing, 2. edn, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1999, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 90 The Art of Parallel Scientic Computing, 2. edn, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Southworth, R. B. & Hawkins, G. S. 1963, Smiths. Contr. Astrophys. 7, 261Google Scholar
Virtanen, J., Muinonen, K. & Bowell, E. 2001, Icarus 154 (2), 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, J. & Muinonen, K. 2006, Icarus 184 (2), 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar