Talk:90482 Orcus

message: Added missing "." in Mass listing on table. Abyssoft 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass listing 

message: From “IAU's Planet Definition” Questions & Answers Sheet:
 (90482) Orcus   1000±200 km [Brown, Binzel, private communication (2006)]
It may be much smaller than thought.--JyriL talk 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diameter

message: I do not believe that we should use proposals as references. After all, if an astronomer wants to get a grant/telescope time etc. he could mention the possibility that the object is … inhabited. I feel we should keep with the usual sources. Let Mr Brown publish first. Eurocommuter 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's a good example of intriguing information that could mentioned on the talk page. Suggestive/speculative information doesn't belong to article itself.--JyriL talk 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't help but think it is a bit outrageous to suggest that Mr. Brown lied about something so important to his work just to get telescope time. JamesFox 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was certainly not my point! My point was that with Google one can find many documents and not all of them should be used as references. Astronomers have data /hypothesis they want to test. They decide what and when to publish. I simply belive that we should let them to do so and then report it. My apologies, if my comment was read otherwise.Eurocommuter 10:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that from the proposal, I get the impression that the satellite of Orcus is regarded as fact by Michael Brown (just not announced), due to the phrasing used, and that the telescope time was to get data necessary to compute the orbital period, not to confirm the existance of the satellite. JamesFox 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but he hasn't published any evidence to prove a satellite. If there is one, he'll publish when he's ready. I'm sure he himself would rather confirm it first, rather than have his funding proposals used as evidence. The Singing Badger 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to track down info as well, but met with the same problem. Is the existence of this page, with the heading "Recently Discovered Natural Satellites and Rings of Major and Minor Planets" and the text "Satellites of 2003 AZ_84, (50000) Quaoar, (55637) 2002 UX_25, and (90482) Orcus. IAUC 8812, 2007 Feb. 22" enough to warrant a mention? Something like "An IAU circular dated 22 February 2007 announced the discovery of satellites for Quaoar and Orcus"? Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources / possible satellite  

message: this change in the Albedo does not make sense. It is way too high' and I could not find any sources for it. I am changing back to the 0.09 value. Chagai 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says right in the text that observations from the Spitzer Space Telescope were used to derive a size, which can the be used to get a value for the albedo, which is given in the text as ~20%. I'm going to revert. JamesFox 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need a source, and a good one. this source is reliable, and support 0.09. If you are familiar with the term Albedo, you know that 20% is impossible! Its like a mirror, which "90482 Orcus" is not. Look at the values of other Trans-Neptun objects. They don't even come close. Chagai 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also Bond albedo. All values are fractions. You are just putting here wrong information. Chagai 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many, many errors in your statements. I'll list at least most of them. 1) 20% is not an impossible amount, it is not close to being a mirror. 2) 20% is a fraction, it is the same as 0.2, just as 0.09 is the same as 9%. 3) Several known TNO's have albedos higher than 0.2, or 20%. Pluto has an estimated albedo of 0.49 to 0.66 (or between 49% and 66%), Eris' albedo is given as being around 86% (0.86). 4) There is a reference for the values determied by the Spitzer Space Telescope, look at reference 1.  5) The 0.09 value should nor be considered better, since if you look at the sources, it is clear that that Albedo was simply assumed, back in the days when Astronomers thought that TNO's would have low albedos. JamesFox 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Albedo

message: Mike Brown just named Orcus's moon. But it's not official until he clears it with the IAU. So should we start making the changes now, to make things easier, or should we wait until it's confirmed beyond doubt? Serendipodous 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the name has merely been submitted and could be turned down.  But we should definitely mention that the name has been submitted to the IAU for review. -- Kheider (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :) Iridia (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and created Vanth (moon). Didn't want to link it into this article until it was official, but that is just a technicality. kwami (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No! This is a bad idea. It is definitely not 'just' a technicality. Vanth is not the name yet, it remains Orcus I. Did you not see the whole debacle over the premature publicising of the naming of Sedna? (Though, nice job on the little moon-article...) Iridia (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll move it to 90482 Orcus I and we can move again if/when the name is approved. kwami (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And cheers for getting back to it so quickly ;) Iridia (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanth

message: The following paper:
:
suggests that the ~10h periodic variability may be caused by the orbit of the satellite and hence the rotation of Orcus might be much faster. For what it's worth.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it claims that there is a 9.7 day photometric periodicity coincident with the orbital motion in addition to weaker 10h periodicity of unknown origin. Ruslik_Zero 06:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faster rotation period? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iauc/08800/08812.html
** In (55637) 2002 UX25 on 2011-05-20 21:18:17, 404 Not Found
** In (55637) 2002 UX25 on 2011-05-31 04:15:46, 404 Not Found
** In 90482 Orcus on 2011-06-19 21:44:28, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: To move the article without prior consensus is a complete mystery to me. The given rationale is not good enough and will cause an administrative nightmare. Guess this opens the door to endless discussions about which TNO is or is not a DP. It's crazy... -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk  22:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should not have been moved and needs to be moved back by an admin. -- Kheider (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the original article name. The claim in the move comment that "Literally every source calls it a dwarf planet" isn't accurate, at least two sources in this article decline to call it a dwarf planet, namely ref #22 IAU and ref #23 NASA. —RP88 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved the page myself, as I gave up my hope he would come to his senses and change his mind. I also fixed half a dozen redirects. I think the term for wasting everybody's time is disruptive editing. When will this end? -- Rfassbind – talk  00:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move without consensus? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 90482 Orcus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018154917/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 90482 Orcus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322195011/http://www.chadtrujillo.com/2004dw/ to http://www.chadtrujillo.com/2004dw/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rrelv96nCQ
I am not a believer in the Nibiru cataclysm, so what is in that final image? 103.38.21.38 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is meaningless youtube clickbait, it could be anything such as a manipulated image of the bottom of a frying pan. -- Kheider (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaked image of Orcus? 

message: Will there be a mission to orcus?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish! A concept has been studied, though it also considers Pluto, Haumea, and Quaoar as possibilities. But only a concept. Double sharp (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploration 

message: How long will a flyby mission to Orcus will take?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Orcus is currently at 48 AU, Pluto at about 30. It took New Horizons almost 15 years to reach Pluto. So, all things being equal, we could expect it to take maybe 24 years to reach Orcus. But all things wouldn't be equal. A big determiner in how long a flight will take is how big a boost the spacecraft gets from its Jupiter flyby. So we'd have to fit the timing to three planets: Earth, Jupiter and Orcus, and we might need to wait years for them to align properly. Also, nothing much is going to happen on Orcus for a century or so, so IMO a bigger priority would be Eris or Sedna. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flyby 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:90377 Sedna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress