I have no idea what you're talking about.
When I was earning my B.S. in Physics (admittedly, a long time ago), I used to love "playing" with celestial mechanics.
This object had, at a certain position in space, a velocity greater than the Sun's escape velocity at that position. Apart from some unimaginable concatenation of events prior to that point in time (i.e., a series of extremely close swing-bys near the Gas / Ice Giants), that can only mean that the object was/is not in orbit around the Sun, but was/is rather on a hyperbolic trajectory.
It's really very simple reasoning.
Regards,
I am at the Ph.D. level and worked with Drs. Rosen ad Phillips, along with many others at HAC and Caltech/JP 1984 to 1992. My most fun project was the Galileo probe project.
Celestial Mechanics is theory that lays a foundation of ***understanding***. It’s important for understanding and for using as a foundation of modeling.
In applications and operations, all parameters or coefficients taken from theoretical equations become ***estimates***, and when they are time-dependent, they change with time. For example, pure Kepler equations are beautiful and effective under purely stable fixed conditions, but if there are any external perturbations, the predictive models become statistical models to account for such perturbations, for example leading to Monte Carlo estimated confidence geometry.
A specific example would be predicting the impact area on the Earth’s surface of say, the massive External Tank of the Space Shuttle. It is not possible to pinpoint the impact area precisely so a 95% confidence ellipse is estimated given the launch inputs. The algorithms to compute it work very well. But the basic model is a Kepler model which you may have studied in a physics book. When you take the next level to an operating real-time setting, the Kepler model needs a whole lot of massaging. But it’s a good starting point.
When calculating orbits of real objects in the planetary system, the same approach is taken to start with elementary models adding components to the equations to account for unknown effects. The modeling equations become statistical models. These unknown effects are modeled to minimize variation (2nd moment effects). So for example, the Sun’s unknown trajectory and the gravitational effects of other orbiting bodies are assumed to be reflected in these 2nd-moment data, and can oscillate over time as the object in focus is tracked. Changes in relative distances are plotted to 3D ‘banded’ trajectories referenced to the Sun. These banded trajectories are not lines or curves, they are more like tunnels where the object may be.
When the electronic sensors and pingers that track an object of interest are in operation, the data processing returns a ‘model’ of reality. Many assume incorrectly that what is viewed is reality, but it’s only a model of reality. The models are very accurate but sometimes models can be off, can break down due to limitations of the signal processing equipment. The young NASA engineers better know these limitations.
Tracking a natural object trajectory in the planetary system is different than say tracking the location of a Voyager satellite. The man-made satellite is designed to maintain or alter its trajectory to explore, to go where the controllers want it to go. The Voyager can escape the galaxy because it’s pulsed in a way that causes it to escape. A natural object may or may not escape. It may appear to have attained an escape velocity but other effects can alter that result over time. It may be that the object escapes, or it may be that other effects cause the object to change its trajectory. It could be the object follows an incredibly long orbit. Or it may be interstellar. The write-up and the reference to Nature do not pin down which it is.
I can’t tell you the seemingly countless times I found errors in modeling, in computational algorithms, in the interpretation of results. I have seen the faces of program managers grow anemic as they were shown errors that their programmers had checked dozens of times but had missed. In most cases, the actual errors were within the corrected error bounds giving the teams great relief. But in some cases, one in which I was involved, the program was reviewed for cancellation. The team I was on was feared as it should because review is necessary.
These youngsters at NASA are having fun calling out what appears to be a nice story. The nice story may be reality or may be fiction. We will have to wait and see.