Talk:2 Pallas

message: Was there originally a photo on this page? There appears to have been one at some point, because there's still a caption...--Firsfron 6 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Yes, there was a montage of the four largest asteroids, using the Ceres and Vesta images, and silhouettes for Pallas and Hygiea. But there was a copyright violation decided for the Ceres image, so it is now gone. I intend to redo the image some time...
Urhixidur 2005 July 6 12:37 (UTC)
Can we use an image like: Shape of (2) Pallas  (Source: shape model deduced from lightcurve) Kheider 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could, but that is not an actual image of the object (especially since the lightcurve modeling assumes uniform scattering).  Another option is occulation chords, which show Pallas to be close to ellipsoidal at some epochs.  Another option is for someone to go get an image.  This would probably require lucky imaging, as time on Hubble or adaptive optics systems is hard to get.  Even then, to make the observation would require a telescope in the 1-m regime (to get a meaningful number of pixels across the target).  Any serious amateur astronomers reading this?  There isn't too much interest on the professional side at the moment. Michaelbusch 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Similarly to what I waffled on about in Talk:Ceres, discrepancies in mass estimates appear for Pallas as well as Ceres and Vesta, due to using different models/methods. The recent ones, apart from Hilton (which appears to be an aberration) hover between 1.0 and 1.2×10-10 solar masses, so I've just taken the average of this, and referenced the two relatively recent papers which gave the most characteristic estimates. Deuar 21:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass

message: HST observations put Vesta at 578x560x458 km in size, while Pallas has a (rough) best estimate of 570x525x500 km. Older estimates tended to imply Vesta was the smaller. The present best size estimates are about the same, making it hard to decide who would be number two. However, Vesta is much more massive, which may make it the better candidate "overall" in some sense. Deuar 20:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What, you don't think an average difference of 0.6% is rock solid? kwami 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;-) Well, the paper where they give the Vesta dimensions [Thomas, Science 277 p 1492] gives uncertainty of 10 km (about 2%), and I believe it's even worse for Pallas. Deuar 11:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second or third? 

message: Needs some expansion on the discovery, and it's former status as a planet...
:Done Michaelbusch 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet

message: Regarding the Celestial Lat and Long (RA and Dec), the text indicates that the pole points towards ecliptic coordinates (β, λ) = (-12°, 35°)...  I am used to seeing the RA in hours, minutes, seconds, followed by the Declination in degrees.  Is the text here indicating the Declination first?  And then the RA (but in degrees instead of hours-minutes-seconds)?  If so, is my assumption correct that Pallas' RA is 2 hours, 20 minutes (corresponding to the 35° reference)?  I noticed this layout on other asteroids as well (e.g., 3 Juno), so I want to make sure of my interpretation.  Others (1 Ceres, 4 Vesta, etc.) use the layout that I am more familiar with: RA hrs-min-sec followed by the Dec (degrees).  Thanks for all this great info on the asteroid pages.  Wonderful stuff.----Tesseract501, March 24, 2006.
:Hi Tesseract! Another good point. I wonder where the inconsistency in notation among the asteroids arose from. To clarify things, there's two basic ways that we could specify the pole directions: 
* ecliptic coordinates: with tilt angle to the ecliptic β called the ecliptic latitude. Both this and the ecliptic longitude λ seem to be usually specified in degrees. 
* equatorial coordinates: with tilt angle to the Earth's equator (the declination). In this coord system right ascension "longitude" is specified in hours and minutes. 
But which system to choose? Personally I prefer the ecliptic system because the ecliptic has some physical relevance for the asteroids, whereas the earth's orientation has none. Also, this site, which contains the most comprehensive up-to date pole data uses the ecliptic coordinates. However, the equatorial system is obviously more widely known. The conversion is actually nontrivial, and is given in the ecliptic coordinates article. Usually λ=α approximately. In this case α=2h28m, δ=+2° it turns out. I wonder whether I should update Ceres and Vesta to the more common coordinates.Deuar 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pole direction

message: Surely there is an image of pallas, gosh, It's the second most main asteroid, I'm going to find one -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL!   04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, amazing, isn't it.  Deuar 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was that carcastic? Shame we can't here voice on wikipedia -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! |  04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe a bit. I find it interesting that no resolved pictures of Pallas appear to have been taken. It's possible to do so because 4 Vesta and 1 Ceres have been imaged with several telescopes each, and Pallas is of a comparable size. Well, half the size of Ceres, and it never comes nearly as close to Earth as Vesta, but some resolution could still be had. However, it doesn't appear to be as exciting a body as Vesta and Ceres for various reasons, so I suppose astronomers haven't been able to win time yet on any of the several telescopes that can do the job. In any case, I'm waiting .... Deuar 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely 

message: An ephemeris ("aspects") of this asteroid was introduced by anonymous user 85.74.29.233 on July 7, 2005. Judging by the contributions, it looks like this user did the same for other asteroids. My feeling on this is that an ephemerides doesn't really belong in wikipedia. Since I can't find a suitable reference I'm thinking of removing it from this page. Does anybody have an objection to this, or a good alternative? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it.  I've been wondering about this myself.  We already have links to NEODys and JPL Horizons. Michaelbusch 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There's consensus on the "WikiProject:Astronomical Objects" talk page for this action as well. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ephemeris? 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
All in all, it's a good article and almost ready for GA status. A few specific comments:
*The article is a little jargony, but it's not too bad.
*It would be nice to have a higher res version of the image, perhaps an actual telescopic image. At the very least, it would be better if the displayed image didn't need to be resized larger than the original.
** Yes it would. I'm hoping something better will become available at some point in the future.
*The source by Rincon cited about hydrostatic equilib doesn't actually say that it might be reclassified as a dwarf planet; rather, it says that under the (failed) IAU resolution, it would potentially become a planet. Try to find a source that has more up to date info.
** That source is less than a year old. Unfortunately I couldn't find an online copy of the IAU's watchlist, which would be the most up-to-date source. I re-wrote it slightly.
*My most serious concern is an apparent factual error in the naming section. To wit, I believe the asteroid is actually named after Athena (thanks to her alternate name, Pallas Athena), not Pallas herself. The former is much more important mythological figure and would be a more likely candidate for an early planet name. Cf. Name_conflicts_of_solar_system_bodies#Conflicts_among_asteroids. Also a quick google reveals that astrologers commonly refer to it as "Pallas Athena asteroid" and this astrological source (not a reliable source on astronomy, but on mythology it might be ok) gives the history as being named after Athena. I tagged it with a  Please find a citation one way or the other.
** Done. — RJH (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well hopefully the (to me trivial) subject of whether this is a "planet" or a "dwarf planet" will be cleared up with the passage of time and better observations. I didn't have great luck with that the first time I tried to reference the subject. Thank you for your review of this article. — RJH (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: Given the new size estimates from the Hubble images, perhaps we should recalculate the surface gravity & escape velocity. kwami (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we do that, then there should at least be a citation for the formulae used. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The formulas are at the links, but in any case the new data don't make any significant difference. Still 0.32 at the longest axis. kwami (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity 

message: As I was visiting this site, I read the above section and my immediate response was "and WHO CARES...?" With a (journeyman level) background in astronomy, it is somewhat obvious to me that you would be able to see solar transits of the inner planets from Pallas - IF YOU LIVED THERE. However I am wondering why this information is 1) listed at all and 2) with such detail that someone actually entered the transit years for the planets as if this trivial information wasn't already esoteria to the nth degree to begin with. The linked page says zero about transits, Pallas, or anything else beyond how the program works. I have found this identical info on other asteroid sites (such as Ceres), so it appears to be a systematic edit - although oddly started. Therefore my suggestion is that this section be deleted as trivia and as a somewhat obvious advertisement. Ckruschke (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the conversation in one place. See: Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- Kheider (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Some people seem to find this type of information interesting. I agree they are likely in a minority.—RJH (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of "Transits of Planets" section? 

message: Does anyone know of any hypotheses about why Pallas has such a high-inclination orbit? --JorisvS (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that Pallas helped eject (or caused to collide with a 3rd object) another protoplanet in a gravitational dominance fight while the asteroid belt was trying to accrete. It is common for gravitational interactions to cause eccentricity to be exchanged for inclination and vice-versa. -- Kheider (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kozai mechanism? Then I calculate that it could have had eccentricity up to 0.59, giving an aphelion of 4.4 AU, easily within the current influence of Jupiter. So could Jupiter have caused it? --JorisvS (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be surprised if Jupiter was involved in helping create Pallas' inclination when Jupiter was migrating. Jupiter has so many footprints in the asteroid belt. The big question is how many protoplanets where in the asteroid belt when Jupiter first formed? -- Kheider (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There could have been a great many and no way to answer that question, especially if Jupiter indeed plunged into the inner Solar System before being pulled back where it is now. --JorisvS (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  High inclination 

message: Hi, I'm looking for a source for temperature data present in the article. Yesterday I found that Johnston at al. may be a good source for the mean temperature value. Johnston at al. (p. 1598) indeed furnishes 165 K as the equilibrium temperature value for a rapid rotating body at the mean distance of 2 Pallas from the Sun. However, I haven't found any source for the maximum temperature value. Do you have any? Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperatures 

message: All articles about minor planets use the template  which has an optional "background" (or bgcolour) parameter to set a bgcolor for the subheadings or section titles within the infobx. In most cases, this , while  and  have different ones. I also encountered some articles with another or no background color at all. (PS: comets using the  template use a hardcoded, yellow background (e.g. 81P/Wild), while several others, such as Tempel 1 and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko use the  template instead and without any defined color for the subheadings).
Question: Is there a concept behind the choice for these colors (and the different templates used for comets)? If not, wouldn't it be a good idea to define a consistent color scheme that corresponds to a given classification? For example: main-belt asteroids, dwarf planets (and candidates) KBOs, comets, centaurs, trojans, NEOs. For such a color-classification scheme, a few simple rules would suffice to resolve any ambiguity. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk  14:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is anything consistent. Good idea to set up such a scheme. --JorisvS (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thx for the reply. Here's a draft. What do you think? -- Rfassbind – talk  00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to continue this discussion at more relevant, centralized place, don't you? --JorisvS (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox  background color 

message: Can we get some of the images from that paper on Pallas's properties uploaded and into the infobox? They are FAR more useful than that grainy Hubble image. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so, but we should check whether they are in the public domain first. --JorisvS (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on checking for public domain. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher quality images 

message: I'm an educated person, with advanced degrees though not in the sciences or mathematics.
The use of metric measurements without imperial (U S.) measurements makes this article utterly incomprehensible and almost utterly meaningless.
Such articles should all provide equivalents in a system that 315 million potential American readers might read, and I'm not particularly inclined to resort to opening a Google page in another window to constantly have to go back and forth between this and that just to be able to read what SHOULD be CLEARLY written in an article that any reader of English can comprehend.
That is, if Wikipedia wants to be taken the slightest bit seriously as being minimallyinformational by most of the population of North America. 2600:1700:4FD0:5AD0:AC91:CC5B:8FE1:69D2 (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How would they make more sense in Imperial? What would you compare them to? Only other astronomy articles, which use the same measurements. For anything else, just read a km as a mile and a kg as a pound, and you're close enough. — kwami (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I am an American. All a person needs to know is that 80MPH is roughly 120KPH. In other-words the 2/3rds rule gets you close enough without cluttering the article/infobox with too many conversions. -- Kheider (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric measurements