This is anarchive of past discussions aboutTalk:1I/ʻOumuamua.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

NOTE: Some of the following below is also copied in "Talk:Interstellar object#Interstellar object on Earth?" - for consideration/discussion -Drbogdan (talk)12:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - seems aninterstellar object may currently be onEarth - recent news^{[1][2][3][4][5]} may be of possible interest to some I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -Drbogdan (talk)20:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Given this recent news, does the first sentence of this article,

ʻOumuamua is the first known interstellar object detected passing through the Solar System.

need to be changed, since Oumuamua was detected in 2017 and the referenced meteorite struck the Earth in 2014?

Amolvaidya06 (talk)21:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and made theedit.Amolvaidya06 (talk)21:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Updated the lede of the'Oumuamua article as follows =>*ʻOumuamua is a knowninterstellar object detected passing through theSolar 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)

FURTHER Updates (also for consideration/discussion) - originally in the "Interstellar object" article as follows:

• Interstellar object - LEDE

The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through ourSolar System was1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significanthyperbolic 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]

• Interstellar object#January 8, 2014 meteor

In 2019, apreprint 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 nearPapua New Guinea at an altitude of 18.7 km.^[3] After declassifying the data in April 2022,^[8] theU.S. Space Command confirmed the detection through itsplanetary protection sensors.^[9][4]

• Interstellar object#Candidates

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]

hope the above helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -Drbogdan (talk)12:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is an article about‘Oumuamua gets a new origin story fromScience News.Rjluna2 (talk)20:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no such story on the site. Perhaps it was taken down - the latest post is:https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oumuamua-interstellar-object-origin-pluto-exoplanet-not-aliens— Precedingunsigned comment added by50.111.29.1 (talk)14:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Interstellar Interlopers a review article discussing Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov.Agmartin (talk)16:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

While not stressed, the article still has too much emphasis on this - there are probably less than 5 astrophysicists who give even the slightest credence to this guff. I recommend reducing it to the briefest of mentions and removing it from the lede.50.111.29.1 (talk)14:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

:I went to review it and there was a very clear, concise description that a small number of astrophysicists may think its is extra terrestrial. Which I think is fair.MaximusEditor (talk)19:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Scientists think they know why interstellar object 'Oumuamua moved so strangely --Beland (talk)21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The closest approach distance in AU is currently listed as 0.1618 AU (24,200,000 km; 15,040,000 mi). The source of that is a web pages which list the closest approach as "24,000,000 km" or "15,000,000 mi"https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/news/a28958/first-interstellar-object-gets-a-name/ and those figures would result in 0.1604 AU or 0.1613 AU, not 0.1618 AU. The extra 200,000 km or 40,000 mi in those figures has been chosen by someone to make the closest approach match the Golden ratio to 4 significant figures.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLamontcg (talk •contribs)17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the linked JPL database has the closest approach to Earth at the bottom listed as "0.16175 AU" which I've updated this page to have that value, since that is authoritative and the significant figures are supported by the uncertainty that the JPL data indicates.Lamontcg (talk)17:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

JPL listed the closest approach as0.16174 to 0.16177 au. --Kheider (talk)20:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

https://avi-loeb.medium.com/oumuamua-was-not-a-hydrogen-water-iceberg-1dd2f7a6107f Looks like the hydrogen theory is bust, so to my knowledge it looks like pretty much every proposed explanation for what this thing was has been shot down. —Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}}19:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Loeb has a conflict of interest because his funding for his pet project requires everything being aliens. He is becoming theRudy Giuliani of astronomy. --Kheider (talk)12:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That's putting it VERY politely, Kheider :)— Precedingunsigned comment added by92.6.182.106 (talk)14:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Elsewhere on Wiki, the initial character of the name is called anʻokina ; it's not a diacritic, but an unicameral (no "capital" form) letter. Using the UNICODE character \x02BB (in HTML, "& #x02bb ;" without the spaces ; decimal 699) is recommended in preference to apostrophes, back-ticks or other approximations. Since Wiki can handle this, it's what should be used. Most of the rest of Hawai&#x0288ian script is Latin/ Roman characters. And yes, that is an ʻokina in both "ʻokina" and "Hawaiʻi". (I only just found this out myself.)

AKarley (talk)22:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

But as a nearby star, Vega was not in the same part of the sky at that time

Speaking as a non-astronomer: to me, "part of the sky" means the apparent constellation it's found in. But the rest of that para is about Vega's distance from the Sun at the time. Am I misunderstanding it, or is it a phrasing problem?Marnanel (talk)14:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

In the section on composition, the sentence "The authors calculated that a month after perihelion, that ʻOumuamua had lost 92% of the mass it had upon entering the Solar System" would appear to apply to an object that consisted largely of ice, similar to a comet.

So the uncommented transition to the first sentence of the next paragraph "Light curve observations suggest the object may be composed of dense metal-rich rock that has been reddened by millions of years of exposure to cosmic rays" creates an unnecessary non-sequitur since a "dense metal-rich rock" object would hardly lose 92% of its mass by passing the Sun at a distance of 37,000,000 k.

I don't have the expertise to fix this authoritatively.Pascalulu88 (talk)23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Try now :)cyclopia^speak!08:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up!Pascalulu88 (talk)Pascalulu88 (talk)21:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (by using the template gaps).

Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 andInternational System of Units), and also it's the recommended style byANSI andNIST.

Proposal: change the article to format numbers like this "1000000" instead of "1,000,000".RGLago (talk)09:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)