The Science About Planet Nine, So Far
forbes.com
forbes.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMCwezegPNg
Forbes does mention the blog, and that's worth following directly too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-ktWBtt7sc&feature=youtu.be
Piece by piece the database would grow in coverage. As it does, its power to make predictions of unknown objects should grow, until we've reached the limit of our current instruments' ability to observe.
Yeah?
Well that's kind of the problem already. For the objects that are interesting, we've either discovered them or they are hard (or impossible) to discover with current instruments. For the ones that are merely hard but not impossible, the process of finding them requires human cleverness or significant telescope resources (and human cleverness can be applied to figure out the best way to direct the limited resources). I'm not really sure that automation helps...
http://crts.caltech.edu/index.html
The original survey was built for near-Earth objects, but the extra-solar-system transients detected (e.g., supernovae) became the subject of many papers.
The supernova catalog that observations like these compiled -- but from other transient-detection networks -- became the basis of the 2011 Nobel Prize for the observational discovery of dark energy: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/20...
You may be seeking after something harder, which is to use orbit anomalies to infer positions of objects - kind of an automation of all the orbital simulation efforts described in the article. That, of course, has not been done.
"Only after the discovery of Neptune had been announced in Paris and Berlin did it become apparent that Neptune had been observed on August 8 and August 12 but because Challis lacked an up-to-date star-map, it was not recognized as a planet."
Radar decreases the same way. However, radar is even worse in that it also decreases on the way back to the sender.
So if you double the distance to the target, the radar signal coming back is 1/16 as strong. If you increase the distance by a factor of 1,000, then the signal coming back is 1/1,000,000,000,000 as strong. And so on...
This makes radar a pretty poor tool for space exploration.
http://www.naic.edu/~pradar/radarpage.html
Title: "Solar System Studies at Arecibo Observatory"
Subtitle: "Introduction to Planetary Radar"
It actually took me a few seconds to find out where the sound was coming from because there was no indication or even volume control.