Asteroid the length of 3 football fields eludes sky-watchers 2000 EM26 "Moby Dick."

Ok while looking into another story being a Bernard story came acrose this

But the asteroid never showed up.

Despite its relatively large size, the asteroid known as 2000 EM26 has long been difficult to spot. In fact, it hasn't been seen by anyone since March 14, 2000, nine days after it was discovered.

"The orbital uncertainties for this object are huge," said Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near Earth Object Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "Although nominal orbit information suggests it would come closest to the Earth on Feb. 18, the uncertainties of its position in the sky are enormous."

Yes it was around Feb 18 2014

this does not sound good but can't find anythig more on it yet

2000 EM26 (Moby Dick)

How can they not figure out its orbit at least to some extent? Orbits work with gravity so if they lost this maybe it isn't an asteroid. Or maybe 9 days after it was discovered it wasn't seen due to its position in the sky (sun in the way maybe), and then hit something else or burned up.

Also here

www.independent.co.uk...

The Dubai Astronomy Group provided Slooh photos of the part of the sky where the rock was expected to be seen, but its motion could not be picked out immediately in a live webcast against the backdrop of night-time stars.

a reply to: Trillium

There is always the possibility, whilst out of sight, it collided with another celestial body. Possibly changed course.

Or...the Aliens tethered it and hauled it in for mining precious minerals.

Who knows at this point.

Des

Here the JPL site

2000 EM26

# obs. used (total) 32
data-arc span 9 days
first obs. used 2000-03-05
last obs. used 2000-03-14
planetary ephem. DE431
SB-pert. ephem. SB431-BIG16
condition code 7
fit RMS .56722
data source ORB
producer Otto Matic
solution date 2013-Nov-21 10:20:56

a reply to: Dianec

How can they not figure out its orbit at least to some extent?

They can. Well enough to know to look for it in February when it was expected to be about 2 million miles from Earth.

I can't find a site that did find it where it was suppose to be ??

Maybe i miss it linky please

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dianec

How can they not figure out its orbit at least to some extent?

They can. Well enough to know to look for it in February when it was expected to be about 2 million miles from Earth.

Ya but nobody did find it where it was suppose to be
With all those 1000 of amateur astronomer
and has a code 7

a reply to: Trillium
Thousands? Not sure about that.
"Where it was supposed to be" covered a large area of sky.

Do you know what the Condition Code means? It means that the chance of recovery (finding it again) is not very good. The calculated orbit is based on only 32 observations made over a period of 9 days. That's enough to know that the closest it would have gotten to Earth was 1.76 million miles but not enough to know precisely where it would be.

Truly the case of an asteroid found and lost. I just asked Leonid Elenin if he can find it again, and the reply was "no" because it's current apparent magnitude is 22.6. That's fainter than Pluto, or Pluto's moon Charon, and only slightly brighter than Pluto's tiny moons Hydra and Nix (discovered in 2005 using the powerful Hubble Telescope).

Looking at its orbit simulation at JPL, it's obvious that it's hard to "catch". The next close approach to Earth won't happen until 7 May 2023.

en.wikipedia.org...

It was discovered on 5 March 2000 and observed through 14 March 2000 by which time it had dimmed to apparent magnitude 20[6] and was 40 degrees from the moon. By 17 March 2000 it was only 4 degrees from a 90% waxing gibbous moon.

So we can officially blame the Moon.

Here's another reason why it's so difficult to spot:

2000 EM26 is an Aten-family asteroid, and as such is often near the glare of the Sun as the asteroid seldom travels outside Earth's orbit when the Earth is nearby.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Trillium
Thousands? Not sure about that.
"Where it was supposed to be" covered a large area of sky.

Do you know what the Condition Code means? It means that the chance of recovery (finding it again) is not very good. The calculated orbit is based on only 32 observations made over a period of 9 days. That's enough to know that the closest it would have gotten to Earth was 1.76 million miles but not enough to know precisely where it would be.

chance of recovery (finding it again)

Guess that your version of if or is it a bit of distortion of it

OCC19 (Orbit Condition Code) provides a rating of the quality of the computed orbit based on the available observations. In this scale 0 is the best and 7 the worst with 1 the typical value for numbered asteroids. - See more at: OCC
and more here
Orbit Condition Code

Orbit
Condition Code Longitude runoff
per decade
0 < 1.0 arc seconds
1 < 4.4 arc seconds
2 < 19.6 arc seconds
3 < 1.4 arc minutes
4 < 6.4 arc minutes
5 < 28.2 arc minutes
6 < 2.1 degrees
7 < 9.2 degrees
8 < 40.7 degrees
9 > 40.7 degrees

Guess they do not know where it is more like a 8

a reply to: Destinyone

Here we go again.

Who knows?

Moby Dick!

a reply to: wildespace
Ya you covered most of the reason why it hard to find
But does not stop the uncertainty of orbit
So to me it should maybe upgraded to a 8

Orbit
Condition Code Longitude runoff
per decade
0 < 1.0 arc seconds
1 < 4.4 arc seconds
2 < 19.6 arc seconds
3 < 1.4 arc minutes
4 < 6.4 arc minutes
5 < 28.2 arc minutes
6 < 2.1 degrees
7 < 9.2 degrees
8 < 40.7 degrees
9 > 40.7 degrees
OCC

a reply to: Trillium

Knowing where it is means knowing its location exactly. They know the general area where it should be, but the area is so big, and the asteroid so dim, that it's practically impossible to find it. Those 9 days of observation provided some certainty, albeit small. I'm sure the condition code of 7 was assigned for specific reasons, because it's the result of specific calculations. You stating that it should be 8 because "they can't find it" makes it look like the scale is completely arbitrary.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Trillium

Knowing where it is means knowing its location exactly. They know the general area where it should be, but the area is so big, and the asteroid so dim, that it's practically impossible to find it. Those 9 days of observation provided some certainty, albeit small. I'm sure the condition code of 7 was assigned for specific reasons, because it's the result of specific calculations. You stating that it should be 8 because "they can't find it" makes it look like the scale is completely arbitrary.

Yes but it is they scale
So which one is it
They have no Idea where it is or
They have no clue what they are doing you are making it worst sounding now

a reply to: Trillium

Ugh, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. They gave it condition code 7 based on the specific amount of observations they managed to get, which, generally speaking, gives them some orbit certainty to know when it will have made a close approach and what part of the sky to look for it. Due to it being so dim, and the designated area of the sky being relatively large, they were unsuccessful this time.

If you're so sure it must be condition code 8 instead of 7, maybe you can present your calculations to show how? This is science and maths, not hand waving and generalising.

Some other asteroids also had condition code 7 when they were discovered, but it got decreased as more observations became available. So condition code 7 is not unique or ubnormal for asteroids.
slaade.blogspot.co.uk...
slaade.blogspot.co.uk...

The trouble with this particular asteroid, is that after only a few days of observation (and enough data to give it condition code 7), it's been lost in the Moon's glare, and then got too dim to be found again.

I don't think it's possible for an object's condition code to increase, unless some of the accuired observations are proved later to be false / mistaken.

a reply to: wildespace

I don't think it's possible for an object's condition code to increase, unless some of the accuired observations are proved later to be false / mistaken.

So observations are proved later to be false / mistaken = not found where it was suppose to de = Code 8

Garrr, does anyone be nailin' a gold dubloon to the mast of the telescope fer anyone' who be spottin' that thar great white asteroid first?

Sorry, the Moby Dick reference came out.

So, they just lost an asteroid?

originally posted by: Trillium
a reply to: wildespace

I don't think it's possible for an object's condition code to increase, unless some of the accuired observations are proved later to be false / mistaken.

So observations are proved later to be false / mistaken = not found where it was suppose to de = Code 8

No, by observations I mean when the object (or what is thought to be the object) is actually observed.

Stop being difficult.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Trillium
a reply to: wildespace

I don't think it's possible for an object's condition code to increase, unless some of the accuired observations are proved later to be false / mistaken.

So observations are proved later to be false / mistaken = not found where it was suppose to de = Code 8

No, by observations I mean when the object (or what is thought to be the object) is actually observed.

Stop being difficult.

Ya I agree with you until it observed it should be a 7+1 = 8
Orbit Condition Code Longitude runoff per decade
0 < 1.0 arc seconds
1 < 4.4 arc seconds
2 < 19.6 arc seconds
3 < 1.4 arc minutes
4 < 6.4 arc minutes
5 < 28.2 arc minutes
6 < 2.1 degrees
7 < 9.2 degrees
8 < 40.7 degrees
9 > 40.7 degrees

So after 13 year of looking within a (7)