Talk:Asteroid family

Merge

Should this article be merged with Hirayama families? Gentgeen 07:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should. 2600:6C4E:187F:E8D0:2C19:F4A9:85AF:3847 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Other families

Please note the longer list of families at Asteroid groups and families, which should be integrated here. Likewise, any definitive changes here, should be integrated into the category page just mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asteroid_groups_and_families

According to earlier work by Zappala (1995), there are two sub-families of the Flora family -- Amneris and Reginita: http://epmac.lpl.arizona.edu/fam.php?family=1 If you have access to the 2002 classifications, please check whether these should be included.

Currently 781 Amneris is listed under the Naema family.

The 1995 work also lists the Polana family as a subgroup of the Nysa family, which seems pretty well accepted now, although there is no page or mention of the Polana family as yet.

A.k.a. (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Table and the Karin family

Why do we have a section called 'less prominent but still certain families' and then one simply called 'other', holding only the Karin family? Why does Karin not simply belong in the 'less prominent' section? The Singing Badger 22:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The original rationale was that the 'less prominent' are all referenced in Bendjoya&Zappala 2002, while Karin is not mentioned there (i think it's a newer discovery). That's probbaly a pointless division, though, and now changed. Deuar 10:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Add orbital resonances to columns in table?

Could we also list the orbital resonances with Jupiter that each family corresponds to in the table? (eg Hilda = 3:2 resonance)

The main belt families don't actually correspond to any resonances, they're caused by collisions between asteroids in random places. An article on asteroid groups outside the main belt including the Hildas would be pretty good to have though :-) Deuar 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "orbits of the families" become easily visible also in a plot where Longitude of ascending node is set constant (by family)? Dreg743 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect not. The reason is that over timespans of millions of years (which is still short in comparison with when most families where formed), almost all the orbital elements change due to perturbations by the major planets, scrambling information on their origin. This is why proper orbital elements are needed to distinguish the families from the background and each other. A plot of the proper longitude of ascending node would probably show them up, though. Deuar 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Baptistina?

Add the Baptistina_family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.43.64 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Add Euphrosynean family?

Novaković, Bojan; et al. (November 2011), "Families among high-inclination asteroids", Icarus, vol. 216, no. 1, p. 69-81, arXiv:1108.3740, Bibcode:2011Icar..216...69N, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.08.016.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asteroid family. 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/20170816000205/http://sbntools.psi.edu/ferret/PropertySearch/familyForm.action to http://sbntools.psi.edu/ferret/PropertySearch/familyForm.action

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)