RE: [find_orb] 2007 CN26

Matson, Robert D. Sep 3, 2013

Hi Alessandro,

I don't think it's a match -- that position is too far SW relative to
the nominal
expected location (03 30 13, -09 38 05). Positional uncertainty for
2007 CN26 at
that epoch is only about 4 arcminutes.

Best,
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: find_orb@yahoogroups.com [mailto:find_orb@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of alessandro odasso
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:03 PM
To: find_orb find_orb
Subject: [find_orb] 2007 CN26

Hi all,
there is a DSS image (October 1982 - Siding Spring Observatory) showing
this object:

AAAAA P1982 10 17.63265 03 29 37.37 -09 39 45.2

To add complexity one should note that the UTC time is likely not
correct (though not too far from the real one - I say this because very
often one can not trust the DSS time proposed by skyMorph and in this
case I do not find another source to obtain the correct time) but anyway
let's imagine for a moment that this object is 2007 CN26

You can see this behaviour:
-if you concatenate the 1982 obs with all 2007 CN26 available
observations until February 2010, you get a reasonable reasidual equal
about to 0".503 -if you add the April 2010 obs, the residual increases
to 0".818 -if you add all other 2010 observations, the residual
increases to more than 5"
- if you add the 2013 observations, the residual increases even more to
about 8"

Do you see a physical reason for the fact that the residuals start
deteriorating after April 2010?
Or ... this is just due to the fact that the more you add observations,
the more the calculations show that there is a decreasing possibility to
link the 1982 observation? So, in conclusion this object (if real) is
_not_ 2007 CN26

Cheers
Alessandro Odasso