<p>Small objects in space are hard to detect and characterise. Compare the tesla with another small solar system body: <a href="https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&amp;body_group=sb&amp;sstr=3729281" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2015TC25</a>, It is currently about 0.3AU (3/10 of the distance from Earth to the sun) and it has a magnitude of about 30. That is perhaps detectable if you know exactly where to look. It would not be "discoverable" at this distance, with current technology. We know about because it made a close pass of Earth in 2015, and it was discovered during that pass. </p>

<p>The Tesla could be discovered if its orbit takes it close to the Earth. Observations of its spectrum would indicate it is not a regular asteroid, The cherry red paint would mark it as being utterly different from natural asteroids.</p>

<p>How close depends on what technology you have. By comparision with 2015 TC25, it might be observable from 0.3AU, if you have enough time and money to spend.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T16:53:42.077Z
Indeed! It's possible, but justifying the telescope time might be hard... https://space.stackexchange.com/a/25121/12102
uhoh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T08:35:08.790Z
2018-02-10T08:35:08.790Z
James K
<p>Space Exploration Stack Exchange were not very fond of this question and closed it, so I think it might fit better here. </p>

<p><strong>Summary: Assuming no foreknowledge of its existence, can Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster be detected and categorised from Earth?</strong> </p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bertrand Russell</a> argued the following, an argument that is now known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Russell's Teapot</a> (emphasis mine): </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that <strong>between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit</strong>, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well now we have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster" rel="nofollow noreferrer">midnight cherry red automobile</a>, between Earth and Mars, in an elliptical orbit around the Sun. </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4b5r5.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4b5r5.jpg" alt=""></a></p>

<p>Now assume that this civilisation we have falls. The knowledge of this automobile is lost. Then in some centuries/millennia later humanity has managed to work its way back to a level of technology comparable to what we have today. </p>

<p><strong>Could this automobile then be detected by "our most powerful telescopes"?</strong></p>

<p>I guess that we could detect it as an orbiting object; it is large enough to be found. Can you confirm or refute this guess? </p>

<p>And if the automobile can be found as an orbiting object, <strong>could it then be determined that this is not an ordinary space rock, but that there is something very odd about it?</strong> That is to say: is it <strong>possible</strong> to do <strong>any</strong> kind of characterisation of the automobile that makes it stand out as an unusual space object. There is some uncertainty about the exact state of the automobile after such a long time, but there is no question that chemically and optically, this will be no space rock, even in several thousand years. The question is if we can detect that. </p>

<p>Digging some more I found about the (re)discovery of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">J002E3</a>, which turned out to (probably) be the Apollo 12 Saturn-IVB upper stage. I quote from <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003DPS....35.3602J" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this paper (emphasis mine)</a>: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Additional <strong>spectral observations</strong> were completed in May 2003 at the Air Force Maui Optical Supercomputing (AMOS) site. Through the modeling of common spacecraft materials, the observations of <strong>J002E3 show a strong correlation of absorption features to a combination of human-made materials including white paint, black paint, and aluminum</strong>. Absorption features in the near IR show a strong correlation with paint containing a titanium-oxide semiconductor. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, in short: <strong>could</strong> we do the same with this automobile and find that this is not a plain old space rock? How close would it have to be for this? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T15:03:06.647Z
Once the JWST is operational,  if   the Roadster crosses its FOV there should be a good chance of detection.   (BTW I'm trying hard to resist the temptation to photoshoop a pic of the Roadster into a deep-space image from the Hubble)
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T16:27:39.730Z
@StephenG Never heard of a **Boilerplate** I see. Look it up. In short: you do not risk a valuable payload on the first flight of a new lifter.
MichaelK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T19:48:04.853Z
@MichaelK Never hear of people who have experiments they're desperate to get into space and probably never will ?  I think you'll find there would be a queue forming to take the chance.  Maybe not very expensive experiments, but nonetheless useful ones.  A heck of a lot more useful than bloody car.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T19:50:34.230Z
@StephenG Normally a boilerplate flight is with a block of concrete or a lump of metal. And you are complaining that **this time** they did not go the full monty and made it a complete science mission? #firstworldproblems #couldnotcareless #becauseitwasAWESOME
MichaelK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T20:03:36.510Z
You've added so much attention-grabbing bold text and yellow background that the whole thing is hard to read.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T20:05:45.053Z
@FlorinAndrei Is [this](https://shrib.com/#JK5ix6oC3U2TRjz3X.WX) better for you then?
MichaelK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T01:14:30.717Z
@MichaelK   Normally, in my experience, the bureaucracy and "procedural formulae" of the business of science gets in the way of the opportunity to take some risks that would not affect the primary experiment at all.  Not just this Musk nonsense, which actually proves my point in a way, because if they could send a car instead of a "dumb" payload, why not send some useful stuff ?  It doesn't all have to cost a fortune and clearly they could have sent something else.  Logically that extends to other similar situations.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T09:59:14.267Z
Ib thought about this but left it too late to suggest to Elon Musk that he actually send a teapot as well - but nice to see someone else thinking along the and lines!
Julian Moore
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T18:21:58.957Z
This question deserves more upvotes.
Jack Moody
<artificial-satellite><classification><detectors>
Musk's Roadster is now Russell's Teapot?
MichaelK
# Musk's Roadster is now Russell's Teapot?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-09)

Space Exploration Stack Exchange were not very fond of this question and closed it, so I think it might fit better here.

**Summary: Assuming no foreknowledge of its existence, can Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster be detected and categorised from Earth?**

[Bertrand Russell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) argued the following, an argument that is now known as [Russell's Teapot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) (emphasis mine):

> Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that **between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit**, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

Well now we have a [midnight cherry red automobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster), between Earth and Mars, in an elliptical orbit around the Sun.

[![](https://i.sstatic.net/4b5r5.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/4b5r5.jpg)

Now assume that this civilisation we have falls. The knowledge of this automobile is lost. Then in some centuries/millennia later humanity has managed to work its way back to a level of technology comparable to what we have today.

**Could this automobile then be detected by "our most powerful telescopes"?**

I guess that we could detect it as an orbiting object; it is large enough to be found. Can you confirm or refute this guess?

And if the automobile can be found as an orbiting object, **could it then be determined that this is not an ordinary space rock, but that there is something very odd about it?** That is to say: is it **possible** to do **any** kind of characterisation of the automobile that makes it stand out as an unusual space object. There is some uncertainty about the exact state of the automobile after such a long time, but there is no question that chemically and optically, this will be no space rock, even in several thousand years. The question is if we can detect that.

Digging some more I found about the (re)discovery of [J002E3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3), which turned out to (probably) be the Apollo 12 Saturn-IVB upper stage. I quote from [this paper (emphasis mine)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003DPS....35.3602J):

> Additional **spectral observations** were completed in May 2003 at the Air Force Maui Optical Supercomputing (AMOS) site. Through the modeling of common spacecraft materials, the observations of **J002E3 show a strong correlation of absorption features to a combination of human-made materials including white paint, black paint, and aluminum**. Absorption features in the near IR show a strong correlation with paint containing a titanium-oxide semiconductor.

So, in short: **could** we do the same with this automobile and find that this is not a plain old space rock? How close would it have to be for this?

**Tags:** artificial-satellite, classification, detectors

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Once the JWST is operational,  if   the Roadster crosses its FOV there should be a good chance of detection.   (BTW I'm trying hard to resist the temptation to photoshoop a pic of the Roadster into a deep-space image from the Hubble)  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Never heard of a **Boilerplate** I see. Look it up. In short: you do not risk a valuable payload on the first flight of a new lifter.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Never hear of people who have experiments they're desperate to get into space and probably never will ?  I think you'll find there would be a queue forming to take the chance.  Maybe not very expensive experiments, but nonetheless useful ones.  A heck of a lot more useful than bloody car.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Normally a boilerplate flight is with a block of concrete or a lump of metal. And you are complaining that **this time** they did not go the full monty and made it a complete science mission? #firstworldproblems #couldnotcareless #becauseitwasAWESOME  
> **username_3**: You've added so much attention-grabbing bold text and yellow background that the whole thing is hard to read.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Is [this](https://shrib.com/#JK5ix6oC3U2TRjz3X.WX) better for you then?  
> **username_2**: @username_0   Normally, in my experience, the bureaucracy and "procedural formulae" of the business of science gets in the way of the opportunity to take some risks that would not affect the primary experiment at all.  Not just this Musk nonsense, which actually proves my point in a way, because if they could send a car instead of a "dumb" payload, why not send some useful stuff ?  It doesn't all have to cost a fortune and clearly they could have sent something else.  Logically that extends to other similar situations.  
> **username_4**: Ib thought about this but left it too late to suggest to Elon Musk that he actually send a teapot as well - but nice to see someone else thinking along the and lines!  
> **username_5**: This question deserves more upvotes.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-02-10. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

Small objects in space are hard to detect and characterise. Compare the tesla with another small solar system body: [2015TC25](https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=sb&sstr=3729281), It is currently about 0.3AU (3/10 of the distance from Earth to the sun) and it has a magnitude of about 30. That is perhaps detectable if you know exactly where to look. It would not be "discoverable" at this distance, with current technology. We know about because it made a close pass of Earth in 2015, and it was discovered during that pass.

The Tesla could be discovered if its orbit takes it close to the Earth. Observations of its spectrum would indicate it is not a regular asteroid, The cherry red paint would mark it as being utterly different from natural asteroids.

How close depends on what technology you have. By comparision with 2015 TC25, it might be observable from 0.3AU, if you have enough time and money to spend.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: Indeed! It's possible, but justifying the telescope time might be hard... https://space.stackexchange.com/a/25121/12102  

---

