This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
A fact from Interstellar object appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 March 2009, and was viewed approximately 2,109 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
If Jupiter can capture a interstellar comet every 60 million years, could this mean the majority of the moons of Jupiter are in fact these comets? -
User:62.8.126.181
No. They go into orbit around the Sun, not around Jupiter. What happens is that the interstellar comet is moving too fast initially for it to remain in the solar system. But occasionally Jupiter's gravity can take enough of the speed off the comet for it to settle into orbit around the Sun.
ReykYO!12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Interstellar debris
The article
Pan-STARRS has a link entitled Interstellar debris to here. Quote "During the formation of a planetary system it is thought that a very large number of objects are ejected due to gravitational interactions with planets (as many as 1013 such objects in the case of the Solar System). Objects ejected by planetary systems around other stars might plausibly be flying throughout the galaxy". Are all such objects interstellar comets, if not should there be a new article on debris?
John a s (
talk)
08:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I suppose a lot of those objects would be rocky rather than icy, and so it might not be right to call them comets. Maybe they could be put in as a subsection of this article, if there are sources for it. Later on if it turns out that there's as much material on interstellar debris as there is on just interstellar comets, we can think about renaming the page. What do you think?
ReykYO!21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I think the page is fine, it describes a theoretical object that is likely to exist. I note that it should be possible to distinquish one from a comet that came from the Oort cloud (which I read is also a theory) due to its trajectory, so lets hope one appears soon!
John a s (
talk)
07:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Interstellar comet. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Sen, A. K; Rama, N. C (1993). "On the missing interstellar comets". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 275: 298.
Bibcode:
1993A&A...275..298S.
Stern, S. Alan (1990). "On the number density of interstellar comets as a constraint on the formation rate of planetary systems". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 102: 793.
Bibcode:
1990PASP..102..793S.
doi:
10.1086/132704.
Valtonen, Mauri J; Zheng, Jia-Qing; Mikkola, Seppo (1992). "Origin of oort cloud comets in the interstellar space". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. 54: 37.
Bibcode:
1992CeMDA..54...37V.
doi:
10.1007/BF00049542.
Finney, B. R; Jones, E. M (1983). "Interstellar nomads". IN: Space manufacturing 1983; Proceedings of the Sixth Conference: 357.
Bibcode:
1983spmf.conf..357F.
Napier, W. M (1990). "Dusty Objects in the Universe". Dusty Objects in the Universe. Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop of the Astronomical Observatory of Capodimonte [OAC 4]. Astrophysics and Space Science Library. 165: 103.
Bibcode:
1990ASSL..165..103N.
doi:
10.1007/978-94-009-0661-7_13.
ISBN978-94-010-6782-9. {{
cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Weissman, P. R (1994). "Why are there no interstellar comets?". Bulletin of the Astronomical Society. 26: 1021.
Bibcode:
1994BAAS...26.1021W.
The following citations were removed during a recent re-write of the introduction, which had become a mess. It wasn't clear exactly what facts they were meant to substantiate, but they are related to the distinction between exoplanets and exocomets.
Jess_Riedel (
talk)
18:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Interstellar comet →
Interstellar object – The recent discovery of
A/2017 U1 which is the first known interstellar object, and is likely not a comet, suggests this article's title be broadened to include it. Interstellar object is already a redirect to this article (and interstellar comet would then be, of course) and the editorial changes to the text would be quite minor.
agr (
talk)
16:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Until we discover some radically different kind of interstellar object, and it requires its own article, this would appear to be a "what if" objection. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Not really. For instance, we already know of
rogue planets and free-floating
brown dwarfs, among other things. The proposed title would seem to include those as well. I think we need to consider a name that makes it clear we're talking about something that's making a close passage through the Solar System.
ReykYO!06:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I see your point, but use of the term "object" for something in the solar system that could be a comet or an asteroid seems established, e.g.
Trans-Neptunian object, or Kuiper belt object (
KBO). If better nomenclature develops we can revisit the title. Note that this article distinguishes Interstellar comets from
exocomets.--
agr (
talk)
01:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment As per the previous discussion here- I think that it would be less ambiguous if it was renamed "interstellar minor planet". It specifies either asteroids or comets, while ruling out things like exoplanets or rogue planets.
exoplanetaryscience (
talk)
22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Support probably the best name currently (I can assume the academics are working out how better to classify bodies which visit our Solar System from outside). Current title also can be confused easily with
Exocomet. --
Netoholic@07:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Our article
Minor planet defines them as "an astronomical object in direct orbit around the Sun that is neither a planet nor exclusively classified as a comet." Indeed the word planet implies an orbit around a star. The IAU Minor Planet Center web site
[1] says "The MPC is responsible for the designation of minor bodies in the solar system: minor planets; comets; and natural satellites." Perhaps
Interstellar minor body or
Interstellar minor object might work, though I have not seen either used elsewhere. Note we also have an article
Substellar object which includes
brown dwarfs.--
agr (
talk)
19:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The word planet does not imply an orbit around a star. See
rogue planet. Anyway, I guess small interstellar body (by analogy to
Small Solar System body) or interstellar minor body would be the most accurate term. The substellar object article illustrates the problem of using "object" for this topic.
Sakkura (
talk)
20:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Substellar object?
Given that
substellar objects includes asteroids and comets and what-have-you, it seems odd to exclude substellar object in the initial definition of what an interstellar object is. Was it meant to say low mass stars perhaps?
RhinoMind (
talk)
20:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As I understand it a substar is a failed star, being not quite big enough for nuclear fusion, but the
Substellar object article claims that the definition includes anything smaller than a star, including planets (and presumably coconuts and suchlike). I'd suggest that the opening paragraph of this article is specifically referring to failed stars, and the other article needs rewriting. I'll alter the opening paragraph to read, "An interstellar object is a body other than a
star or
substar located in
interstellar space, and not
gravitationally bound to a
star." (It will still be linked.) It might be a good idea to tidy up the other article since, as far as I know, asteroids and comets (and coconuts) are not classed as substellar objects. nagualdesign20:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Hi. Good idea. I don't know what "substellar object" is supposed to mean really, so I didn't dare mingling with that article on my own.
RhinoMind (
talk)
21:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
It's entirely possible that there's more than one definition of substellar object, or rather, that there are two not-quite-related concepts that both employ the same phrase, and the
Substellar object article is erroneously mixing the two. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia adopting a working definition and sticking with that. Alternatively, the two concepts could be given different articles (
Substellar object and
Substar?), though that would probably be confusing. If you check through the references and see which ones use which definition, we could rewrite the article to specifically mean failed stars (unless others disagree) with a subsection to explain other uses of the phrase if necessary. To be honest, I don't think that any astronomers consider terrestrial planets to be substellar objects, or if they do then they don't consider substellar object and substar to be synonyms. nagualdesign21:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Creation of new section for identified or potential candidates other than 'Oumuamua
I've just added a line regarding the PNG bolide, tucked in under the existing section for 'Oumuamua. It occurs to me that it and the previously mentioned four other candidate objects probably deserve a section of their own, but I see we have no articles about the other four objects, and I've found no real extra information regarding them online to warrant a new section. It's not ideal, but for now I've left them all lumped together. If anyone can find any other references and wants to move that content to the new section, please do.
Cadar (
talk)
15:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)reply
BRIEF Followup - Updated the lede of the
'Oumuamua article as follows => *ʻOumuamua is a known
interstellar object detected passing through the
Solar System.(+ref) It is possibly the second interstellar object known; the first being a purported interstellar meteor that impacted Earth in 2014.(+refs)" - seems better - comments welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk)
22:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
FURTHER Updates (also for consideration/discussion) - originally in the "
Interstellar object" article as follows:
The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through our
Solar System was
1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was
2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significant
hyperbolic excess velocity, indicating they did not originate in the Solar System. Earlier, in 2014, an interstellar object was purported to have impacted Earth, based on its estimated initial high velocity.[1][2][3][4]
In 2019, a
preprint was published suggesting that a 0.45 meter meteor of interstellar origin, did burn up in the Earth's atmosphere on January 8, 2014.[6][7][1][2] It had a heliocentric speed of 60 km/s and an asymptotic speed of 42.1±5.5 km/s, and it exploded at 17:05:34 UTC near
Papua New Guinea at an altitude of 18.7 km.[3] After declassifying the data in April 2022,[8] the
U.S. Space Command confirmed the detection through its
planetary protection sensors.[9][4]
In April 2022, astronomers reported the possibility that a meteor that impacted Earth in 2014 may have been an interstellar object due to its estimated high initial velocity.[1][2][3][4]