Visually Observing Comets (Astronomer's Pocket Field Guide)

Astronomer’s Pocket
David A. J. Seargent Field Guide
Visually Observing Comets

Astronomer’s Pocket Field Guide
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/

series/7814
David A.J. Seargent
Visually Observing
Comets
David A.J. Seargent
The Entrance, NSW, Australia
ISSN 2198-0756 ISSN 2198-0764 (electronic)

Astronomer’s Pocket Field Guide
ISBN 978-3-319-45434-4 ISBN 978-3-319-45435-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017933963
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the
whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or
hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free
for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may
have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Meg
Preface
Traditionally, comet observing/hunting and variable star observing

have been widely considered the two fields of amateur astronomy
where the visual observer is capable of making a true contribution to
scientific knowledge. That is not to say that contributions cannot be
made in other fields as well, but these two subjects were widely
regarded as offering the most opportunities for users of modest equip-
ment and were accordingly very popular with amateur astronomers.
Comets, in particular, presented some very attractive prospects. As
well as being interesting objects in their own right, they had for many
years been largely neglected by the professional astronomical commu-
nity, and the brighter ones at least can be studied with minimal
equipment.
Then, of course, there was the prospect of actually discovering a
new object and the very rewarding consequence that comets were tra-
ditionally named for their discoverers. The possibility of having one’s
name attached to an astronomical object to be cataloged for all time
was certainly an incentive to spend many hours sweeping the sky in
search of these bodies! Even naked-eye discoveries, while not common,
were not unknown, and large binoculars or small telescopes using low-
power eyepieces were the preferred instruments of most successful
comet hunters. A newspaper report of the discovery of Comet Ikeya in
1963 went so far as to describe the instrument used by (the then
19-year-old) Kaoru Ikeya as a “toy,” although the journalist did at least
have the courtesy to place that word in quotes. The telescope was no
toy—it was a well-made 8″ (20-cm) reflector—but it had been con-
structed by the discoverer himself at minimal cost.
With the increasing number of professional programs employing
wide-angle cameras, from the middle years of the last century, the per-
centage of amateur discoveries declined as objects too faint for visual
detection were accidentally picked up by these programs, not that the
discovery of comets was their aim. Most of the programs were set up
viii Preface
to find minor planets or nearby stars through their large proper

motion, but the extra comet discoveries still provided a welcome
bonus. Around the same time, there was somewhat of revival of inter-
est in comets among professional astronomers as the role of these
objects in Solar System formation and even in terrestrial life (through
the possible delivery of water and organic compounds) began to be
recognized.
On the whole, however, this did not have too great an effect on ama-
teur discoveries. Many of the comets found during the course of pro-
fessional programs remained faint and would not have been discovered
visually by amateurs. A visual search program by professional astrono-
mers at the Skalnate Pleso Observatory in Czechoslovakia (now
Slovakia) from the late 1940s until about 1960 proved more trouble-
some, as it was in direct competition with amateurs at that time; how-
ever, the number of amateur discoveries (especially by the Japanese)
increased again during the 1960s following the termination of the
Czechoslovakian program.
From about 1960 until the middle of the decade of the 1990s, visual
discoveries by amateur astronomers were frequent. The popularity of
Dobsonian telescopes made larger aperture reflectors more readily and
cheaply available, and high-power binoculars having apertures of
80 mm and larger became easier to acquire. At the same time, increased
interest by professional astronomers made amateur observations more
in demand, and publications such as the International Comet Quarterly
provided repositories for comet observations as well as recent profes-
sional research concerning these objects. This period became some-
thing of a golden age for visual comet observing.
All this changed in about the middle of the 1990s. A combination of
automated professional programs in search of potentially hazardous
near-Earth asteroids plus space-based surveys of various kinds has
proved to be far more efficient at comet discovering than the photo-
graphic programs of earlier decades. These recent programs have
largely been responsible for the discovery of comets many months or
even years before these objects reach perihelion.
Although inevitably faint at the time of discovery, many of the com-
ets found in this way have later brightened to within the visual range
of small telescopes and would very likely have been visual discoveries
had the automated programs not been operating. On the other hand,
the most successful of the nonhuman comet discoverers—the SOHO
Preface ix
extraterrestrial solar observatory—has robbed visual observers of few

objects, most of these potentially visual finds having been spotted on
ultraviolet images secured by the SWAN instrument. Two of the SOHO
coronagraphs, LASCO 2 and 3, have found over 3000 comets at latest
count (more than the total of all known comets prior to 1995!), but just
three of these were sighted from the ground, and only two of these
would have stood any chance of visual discovery.
In recent years, as we look through the list of new comet discoveries,
we are met with names such as LINEAR, PANSTARRS, LEONOS, Siding
Spring, Catalina, MOSS, ISON, SOHO, NEOWISE, and so forth. These
are obviously not the names of people. They are either the acronyms of
automated programs or the observatories (some space-based) from
which the discoveries were made. One may look at the list and be dis-
couraged, not just from visual comet searching but also from visually
observing comets at all.
This book has been written to hopefully counter this feeling.
Although it would be fanciful to think that anyone armed with nothing
more than a good pair of binoculars still has as strong a chance of
discovering a comet as he or she had 30 years ago, it is equally incorrect
to think that a dedicated visual comet hunter no longer has any pros-
pect of success. Moreover, it would be very wrong to think that comet
observing with the eye instead of a CCD no longer has an important
place in astronomy. As the following pages will hopefully make clear,
visual observations are needed as much as they ever were.
This book is divided into three main sections. In the first of these,
we take an overview of the subject, briefly covering the changing views
of comets from earliest times down to the present day. We examine the
main features of these objects and the reason why they display their
characteristic activity while relatively close to the Sun.
Part Two deals specifically with the types of observations by which
visual observers can make meaningful contributions to the study of
comets. In the course of this section, we will look at the best approach
to comet hunting in this age of automated programs and the types of
comets that are more likely to be discoverable by visual means as well
as the regions of the sky where they are more likely to be found.
As well as comet hunting, we shall look at the various types of
observations that can best be undertaken by the amateur astronomer
with relatively simple visual equipment.
x Preface
The most important observations are those determining the total

magnitude of the comet’s head or coma. The various methods of esti-
mating this value, together with the benefits and difficulties peculiar to
each, are examined. The methods of estimating the diameter of the
cometary coma are also discussed, together with a scale for the degree
of central condensation of the coma. A chart depicting the appearance
of cometary comae showing the varying degrees of condensation is
provided to enable direct comparison with the image seen in the eye-
piece. These measurements of diameter and estimates of degree of
condensation provide an idea of how the comet appears in the eyepiece
of a telescope. We will also discuss what to look for concerning the tails
of comets and how the length and orientation of these features, with
respect to the head, can be measured.
In addition to these quite basic observations, various unusual and at
times controversial features that have been reported from time to time
are mentioned. These range from the well-established coma and tail
structures such as jets and envelopes in the coma, rays and striae in the
tail, secondary condensations, and “satellite” comets to controversial
reports such as aurora-like fluctuations and pulsations in tail bright-
ness occurring over very brief time intervals in addition to rapid
apparent motions along the tail.
Verbal descriptions of the different features are supplemented by
photographs of actual examples displayed by relatively recent comets
in addition to several drawings made by observers of objects seen in
earlier years. These should help observers identify similar cometary
phenomena observed by the naked eye or through the eyepiece of a
telescope.
Part Three of this book then turns to several of the brighter and/or
more interesting periodic comets predicted to appear between the end
of 2016 and 2027. A brief observational history of each of the listed
comets is given, together with the orbital elements for the predicted
return, an ephemeris covering the period of maximum expected
brightness of each comet and a chart depicting the path that the comet
is predicted to follow across the sky. This information should be suffi-
cient for observers to use in their determination of more exact ephe-
merides adapted to their location and time of observation. Updated
orbital elements will almost certainly be available on the Web as the
time of return of these comets approaches, especially following their
first detection through large telescopes and while they are still distant
Preface xi
from the Sun, and these upgrades will enable even more accurate pre-
dictions to be made in due time. Of course, it must always be remem-
bered that comets are notoriously unpredictable, and this should
especially be borne in mind with respect to the magnitude forecasts
provided here. These are only approximations at best and may turn out
to be wide of the mark.
Cowra, New South Wales, Australia David A.J. Seargent

July 2016
Acknowledgements
My appreciation is extended to the staff of Springer Publishing, par-

ticularly to Maury Solomon and Nora Rawn, for their suggestion that a
field guide for visual comet observers might be a project worthy of
pursuing as well as for their assistance in the book’s preparation. The
guidance offered by Nora Rawn has been especially helpful in bringing
this project to fruition.
I would like to thank Stephen Wiggins for granting me permission
to include his fine painting of Comet West, and Joseph Brimascombe,
E. Kolmhofer, H. Raab, Ivan Eder and Michael Jaeger for permission to
include their comet images. These alone are proof that comets make
worthwhile objects for observation.
Contents
Part I Introducing Comets

1 Comets Throughout History..................................................... 3
2 Comets in Motion....................................................................... 9
3 Toward the Modern Understanding of Comets....................... 13
4 The Formation of Tails............................................................... 35
5 The Origin of Comets................................................................ 43
6 A Reservoir of Comets!.............................................................. 51
Part II The Role of Visual Comet Observers

in the Age of CCDs
7 The Value of Visual Observing in a Photo-Happy World....... 59
8 Visual Comet Hunting................................................................ 63
9 Observing Known Comets......................................................... 71
10 The Coma: How to Estimate Its Brightness
and Record Its Features.............................................................. 79
11 Observing the Tails of Comets: What to Look For
and Record.................................................................................. 109
12 Recording and Reporting Your Observations.......................... 131
Part III The Nuts and Bolts of Comet Observing

13 Relatively Bright Comets Predicted to Return
from 2016 to 2027....................................................................... 137
14 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, an “Outbursting”
Comet to Watch........................................................................... 191
15 Some Prominent Visual Comet Discoverers............................ 207
xvi Contents
16 The Kreutz Sungrazing Comet Group:

A Special Opportunity for Visual Comet Hunters?................. 219
17 Numbered Observable Short-Period Comets.......................... 225
18 Unnumbered Short-Period Comets.......................................... 235
Appendix A: Atmospheric Extinction Tables................................... 241
Appendix B: The Phase Angle of a Comet........................................ 247
Appendix C: “Lost” Short-Period Comets........................................ 249
Appendix D: Lunar Phases 2017–2027.............................................. 253
Glossary of Terms............................................................................... 261
Author Index....................................................................................... 271
Subject Index....................................................................................... 273
About the Author
David A.J. Seargent is a former part-time lecturer in philosophy with

the Department of Community Programs at the University of Newcastle
(Australia). He is a regular contributor of a comet column to Australian
Sky & Telescope and formerly to Sky & Space magazine. Additionally,
he authored the following books in Springer’s Astronomers’ Universe
series: The Greatest Comets in History, Weird Astronomy, Weird
Weather, Weird Worlds, Weird Universe, and Weird Astronomical
Theories of the Solar System and Beyond.
PART I
INTRODUCING COMETS
Comets Throughout History 3
CHAPTER 1
COMETS THROUGHOUT HISTORY
Comets have been objects of both fascination and fear since time imme-
morial. Often conspicuous and spectacular in appearance, they seem to
stand apart from the more usual varieties of astronomical phenomena.
Even their movement across the sky is different. Like the “wandering stars”
that we today know as planets, they do not remain in a set position among
the fixed stars. In fact, they are even less constrained than the planets
because, unlike the latter, they move at varying rates and are not even
confined to the region of the zodiac. Comets can appear anywhere in the
sky, move in any direction at just about any speed. Even the polar region is
not exempt from their presence. It is as if these strange objects belong to a
different order from the other astronomical bodies.
Records of these strange apparitions have been found on Chinese oracle

bones dating back over a millennium before the time of Christ and
accounts of several from the fourth century b.c. appear in the works of
Aristotle. It is not clear what the ancient Chinese thought comets were, but
their interest in them was more astrological than astronomical, although
dividing those two approaches is somewhat anachronistic, in the true
meaning of that word. Whereas these days astrology and astronomy are
clearly differentiated, that was not so in ancient times, especially in cul-
tures such as that of early China, when the sky was believed to be inti-
mately associated with, and in effect to represent, the situation on Earth.
Depending upon their appearance and location in the sky, the old Chinese
astronomers/astrologers attempted to predict future events based on
them. Although such beliefs have long since passed from mainstream
acceptance, the incentive they gave these ancient sages to carefully note
the positions, motions and appearances of the comets they observed
resulted in a legacy of incalculable importance to later generations.

D.A.J. Seargent, Visually Observing Comets, Astronomer’s Pocket
Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_1
4 Chapter 1
Comets were noticed by other ancient cultures as well, and in most

instances were regarded with fear and associated with disastrous events
on Earth. Bright ones are sufficiently rare to be considered events of an
unusual nature, and it is nearly always possible to find some unfortunate
event (a war somewhere, a famine, the death of a benevolent national
leader, etc.) happening not too far removed in time from the appearance of
one such comet, for an apparent association to be found. The tendency
was, therefore, to see these objects as supernatural and portentous rather
than simply astronomical, although, harking back to our earlier comment
that the modern schism of astrology and astronomy does not accord with
ancient thinking, so likewise our sharp division between the “natural”
astronomical events and celestial signs of a supernatural and portentous
nature would have been foreign to early cultures.
Probably the first people to have some inkling of the nature of comets were
the Babylonians, who associated them with the “wandering stars,” or plan-
ets. They seem to have thought of comets as certain types of planets, albeit
ones whose wanderings took them very far afield and permitted them only
occasionally to become visible from Earth. This is actually pretty close to
the truth, although it should be remembered that Babylonian astronomy
was empirical rather than theoretical and that there is no reason for think-
ing that they understood, or even speculated about, the intrinsic nature of
planets and comets.
It was the ancient Greeks who put forward the first “scientific” models of
comets. They were, indeed, the first to apply what we today would call the
“scientific method” to questions about the nature of the world, so it is only
fitting that comets were included within the sweep of their scientific
approach. However, there was no overriding agreement among these old
sages as to what comets actually were.
Although we have no extant writings in which his ideas are presented, we

have it on the opinion of later authorities that Ephorus opined comets to
be somehow formed by the conjunction of planets. In support of this sug-
gestion, he apparently made the claim that a great comet that appeared in
the year 372 b.c. of our calendar split into two segments or “planets.” This
alleged observation was mentioned by Seneca and given by him as evi-
dence of Ephorus’ unreliability. Apparently, the thought of a comet split-
ting was too farfetched for Seneca, and he seems to have suspected that
Ephorus invented the observation to add support to his ideas about the
nature of these objects. Today, of course, we know that splitting of comets
is not an uncommon phenomenon, although none of the observed disrup-
tions of cometary nuclei would have been visible to the naked eye. If
Ephorus really did see something, like a splitting of this comet, it must have
been something other than the schism of its nucleus. As we shall see, com-
ets sometimes lose their tails, or segments of their tails, and it is possible
that Ephorus witnessed something like this. In any case, and without wish-
ing to follow Seneca in casting doubt upon his integrity, Ephorus alone
mentioned the event, as far as we are aware. Aristotle and several other
ancient writers mention the comet of 372 b.c., but none of the extant writ-
ings give any hint that it split.
Mention of Aristotle brings us to the first theory of the nature of comets for
which the actual work of the author, and not simply handed-down reports,
survived. But Aristotle’s model did not see comets as truly astronomical
objects. In his opinion, comets were like “slow meteors,” both classes of
object being “exhalations” from Earth that, upon reaching the supposedly
fiery realm of the upper atmosphere, caught alight and burned. Meteors
burned quickly and were consumed, quite literally, in a flash. Comets, by
contrast, were only slowly consumed and could remain a feature of the sky
for weeks or even months.
This comet model had certain aspects in common with the Mesopotamian
opinion that comets are a sort of whirlwind. Although we have no direct
access to the Mesopotamian speculations, we do have a record by
Epigenes stating that they considered comets to be “a kind of eddy of vio-
lently rotating air.” There is no reason to think that Aristotle was influenced
by this, but the similarity is interesting. Although only speculation, we
might wonder if the Mesopotamian view was influenced by the similarity
of appearance between the tails of some bright comets and the funnel
cloud of a tornado or waterspout, especially considering that funnel
clouds have occasionally been seen to glow at night due to the intense
electrical activity associated with them.
Although completely incorrect, Aristotle’s model does have some observa-

tional support. Much of his writing concerning comets deals with the espe-
cially bright and spectacular object visible during the time that Alcisthenes
was archon of Athens, i.e., around the year 372 b.c. This was almost certainly
6 Chapter 1
the same object that, according to Seneca, was described by Ephorus.

Aristotle would have been a child of about 12 years of age when this object
hove into view, so his descriptions are probably his own childhood recollec-
tions. Seeing this object may even have been the event that got him inter-
ested in natural science and directed him away from following his father
into a career in medicine. Be that as it may, Aristotle notes that this comet
first appeared low over the western horizon shortly after sunset and gradu-
ally rose higher into the sky during the following days. The tail stretched
upward “like a great ribbon.” It would not have taken much imagination to
picture this object as something being thrown upward into the atmos-
phere and attaining greater altitude with each passing day. Moreover, the
arrival of this comet coincided with an earthquake in Achaea and a tsunami
that flooded Buris and Helice. On the one hand, that could be read as sup-
porting the portentous nature of comets, but Aristotle may have seen
these upheavals as evidence that something rather large erupted from
(was “exhaled by”) the ground and caught fire in the upper atmosphere.
The relegation of comets to the terrestrial air apparently had an appeal for
the Western mind and came to hold sway over the earlier views of these
objects as some sort of planet or even as being (somehow) formed by con-
junctions of planets as Ephorus apparently believed. A good indication of
what astronomers then thought of comets is given by Ptolemy in his
Almagest. He made no mention of them at all!
Even as late as the time of Galileo (1564–1642), the idea that comets were
a type of astronomical body was far from gaining universal acceptance.
Galileo expressed the opinion that comets, while beyond Earth’s atmos-
phere, are not real material bodies but, instead, merely reflections of sun-
light not unlike rainbows, sundogs and many of the other spectacular light
effects that grace our skies. This hypothesis met with a very favorable
response from the intellectual hierarchy. So much so indeed that Galileo
felt emboldened to publish his results on the moons of Jupiter and their
non-geocentric orbits. That idea was not received with equal enthusiasm!
On the other hand, Galileo’s younger contemporary, Johannes Kepler

(1571–1630), had a very different view of comets. In his opinion, they con-
stituted accumulations of “impurities” with tails of “filth” forced outward by
the Sun’s energy. Terms such as “impurities” and “filth” might seem a little
pejorative, although not too inaccurate in view of what we now know
about the composition of these bodies, but Kepler’s understanding of com-

ets as accumulations of space debris (in addition to the role he gave to solar
energy in the formation of their tails) showed remarkable insight. Moreover,
it was Kepler who first appreciated the enormous numbers of comets that
must exist, remarking that he believed that there are more comets in the
sky than there are fish in the oceans. On the other hand, his notion that
comets moved through space along straight lines was incorrect, but we can
surely forgive him this slip in view of the accuracy of his other insights.
Other ideas that began to circulate around this time included the hypoth-
esis put forward by Johannes Hevelius (1611–1687), namely, that comets
are fragments that have broken away from the Sun and planets (including
the Earth itself) and subsequently propelled through space along parabolic
trajectories. The orbits of many comets do indeed verge on the parabolic,
and while they are not actually fragments of planets, the idea that they are
solid bodies that are somehow associated with planetary formation has
withstood the test of time, even if not in the form put forward by Hevelius.
Part of the difficulty in understanding the physical nature of comets con-

cerned their sometimes odd behavior. They not infrequently failed to
maintain a stable appearance (which, by the way, is a good reason for con-
tinuing visual observation of these objects!). Sudden changes of shape and
brightness are not uncommon, so very different from the fixed appearance
of the Sun, Moon, stars (with a very few exceptions) and planets. Even
when these latter do vary (the changing brightness of Mars between oppo-
sition and conjunction for instance), they do so in a regular fashion. But
comets are anything but predictable in the way they behave. Leonardo da
Vinci once noted, with apparent astonishment, that “Why, this comet
seems variable in shape, so that at one time it is round, at another long, at
another divided into two or three parts, at another united, and sometimes
invisible and sometimes becoming visible again.” These were seen to be
strange objects indeed!
The time had not yet arrived for the true nature of comets to be discovered,
but at least by the end of the seventeenth century, an understanding of
their motion through the Solar System had been reached.
Comets in Motion 9
CHAPTER 2
COMETS IN MOTION
We all know the story of Newton and Halley. Thanks to his discovery of the
phenomenon of gravity and the formulation of its effects in the form of
mathematical laws, Newton was able to demonstrate that comets obeyed
the same universal law as every other physical object in the universe. Much
of this work was based upon the motion through the sky of a very spec-
tacular comet that appeared during the latter part of 1680 (Fig. 2.1). In the
process, he was able to show that the bright comet that had graced the
morning skies during November and early December of 1680 was actually
the same as the even more magnificent apparition that emerged from the
evening twilight just prior to Christmas. He also correctly demonstrated
that this comet had passed unusually close to the Sun around mid-month.
The main difference between the orbits of comets and planets lay with the
fact that, whereas planets followed paths that were only slightly elliptical,
comets moved through space along paths that were (or were close to) a
parabola. The path of the 1680 comet was either a true parabola or a very
elongated ellipse. If the first alternative was correct, the appearance of
1680 was its one and only visitation. However, as nature is about as
unlikely to draw a parabola as a straight line, it was more likely that the true
path of this comet was an ellipse having a period of hundreds or even
thousands of years.
By applying Newton’s theory of gravity, his colleague, Edmond Halley

(1656–1742), calculated the orbits of 24 comets that had been recorded dur-
ing the preceding centuries. Although he calculated the orbits of these
objects on the assumption of parabolic motion (really for simplicity sake and
due to the fact that the available observations were not sufficiently precise
to enable one to distinguish between a parabola and an eccentric ellipse), he
was struck by the apparent similarity between some of the orbits as well as
by some regularly spaced intervals separating the appearance of a few of

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_2
10 Chapter 2
Fig. 2.1 The Great Comet of 1680 over Rotterdam. (Painting by Lieve

Verschur, 1627–1686)
the catalogued comets. This led him to conclude that certain comets, at
least, return at regular intervals. Perhaps they all do, albeit with periods so
long that their previous returns have been lost in the mists of prehistory.
Three groups of cometary apparitions were suspected by Halley as having

been repeated returns of a single object. The first was a trio of objects
observed in 1531, 1607 and 1682, the last of the series having been
observed by Halley himself. These objects all moved along remarkably
similar orbits, and Halley strongly suspected that they were simply differ-
ent apparitions of the same body pursuing an elliptical path having a
period of about 75 or 76 years. In apparent support of this conjecture,
Halley noted that a similarly bright comet had appeared in the year 1456.
Although this one was not included in his catalogue of orbits, the time
interval was suspiciously close to that separating the other three. From
this, he predicted that the comet would return around the year 1758 or
1759—a prediction that was gloriously fulfilled, even though Halley did
not live to witness it personally. Since then, Halley’s Comet, as it became
Comets in Motion 11
Fig. 2.2 Comet Halley in 1986 showing rays in ion tail. (Image courtesy of
NSSDC Photo Gallery, NASA, image by W. Liller)
known (although its more formal title is now 1P/Halley) has been observed
in 1835, 1910 and 1986 (Fig. 2.2) when it was visited by a fleet of unmanned
spacecraft, and images of the active nucleus of a comet were beamed back
12 Chapter 2
to Earth for the first time. The comet is due back once more in 2061 and is
scheduled to make a very close pass of Earth—to just 0.09 AU—during its
subsequent return on May 7, 2134.
Halley also suspected that the comet he and Newton had observed in 1680
might have been a return of a very spectacular one widely observed in
1106, as well as one listed in Byzantine records for the year 530 and even
the one seen at the time of the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 b.c. This
opinion was not based upon any orbital similarities of these bodies, as an
orbit had been calculated for 1680 alone. Halley was basing his suspicions
on the similar time intervals between the apparitions and the fact that all
of these objects were bright. In contrast to his thoughts about the 1682
comet, we now know that the objects of 44 b.c., 530, 1106 and 1680 were
different objects. Ironically, the 530 object was actually an early appear-
ance of the 1682 comet!
Halley’s orbit catalogues also included two other objects having similar
orbital elements that Halley suspected as being separate returns of a single
body. These were the bright comets of 1532 and 1661, the first having been
observed by Peter Apian and represented by him in woodcuts depicting
the orientation of its tail to be consistently in an anti-solar direction. This
suggested identification was also incorrect, although the latter comet at
least has turned out to be one of a relatively short period. It returned in
2002, at which time it was rediscovered by Kaoru Ikeya and Daqing Zhang,
after whom it has now been named. Earlier apparitions of Comet Ikeya-
Zhang have probably been found in the form of the comets of 1273 and
877. Although it cannot be identical with the 1532 comet, it is possible that
these two have a common origin. Maybe they were once a single object
that split apart near perihelion hundreds of years ago.
Toward the Modern Understanding of Comets 13
CHAPTER 3
TOWARD THE MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF COMETS
Nevertheless even after their motion across the sky had been tamed by
Newtonian gravity, the veil of mystery shrouding comets was merely loos-
ened rather than completely torn away. The nature of these strange objects
appeared to defy a simple explanation. They clearly were not solid bodies,
like the planets, nor were they similar to the Sun and other stars. Even
though the heads of some comets looked relatively dense, the fact that stars
were most often visible, typically with little or no dimming, implied that they
must actually be composed of very rarefied material. This applied even more
to the tails that accompanied many comets, especially the brighter ones.
These had no known counterpart among the features of other astronomical
objects. Moreover, they did not necessarily stream out behind the comet’s
heads, as one might imagine of a moving object. Instead, they appeared to
be directed more or less away from the direction of the Sun, as noted by
Chinese astronomers over 1000 years ago and again by Peter Apian in 1532.
Superficially, the appearance of the bright heads and streaming tails of large
and conspicuous comets might be interpreted as something hot and burn-
ing. Indeed, it is not unusual to find mention of “heat” in nineteenth-century
journal articles describing comets. An account of the Great Comet of
February 1880 in one of the leading scientific journals of the day noted that
“the weather was hot” during a sighting of this comet from Australia. The
implication was clear: the comet was responsible for the high temperatures
at the time. Needless to say, there is no need to invoke a comet to explain hot
weather in Australia during February! Curiously, this idea proved to be
remarkably durable in some quarters. A book on popular astronomy not that
long ago stated as a given fact a comet model that understood these objects
to be incandescent. According to this work, comets “caught fire” as they
approached the Sun, a view it attributed to W. Olbers following his observa-
tions of the Great Comet of 1811. The book went on the say that, although
Earth’s passage through a comet’s tail is a harmless event, an encounter with
the head would surely result in a “great fire” amounting (it was implied) to a

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_3
14 Chapter 3
global conflagration. Disturbingly, even as late as 1960, at least some sec-

ondary school science teachers told their classes that “comets have a star-like
head.” By “star-like,” some at least meant a hot molten body rather than
something that simply had a star-like appearance.
A great advance in the understanding of the physical nature of comets was

made following a number of interesting and at times spectacular events in
the middle years of the nineteenth century. However, as sometimes hap-
pens with advances in knowledge, this also brought with it some errors of
overemphasis, as we shall see.
During the early morning hours of November 13, 1833, residents across
much of the United States were awakened by what must have seemed like
a display of lightning. But this was no thunderstorm! The sky was filled, not
with streaks of lightning but with meteors. Thousands were falling, ranging
from faint shooting stars to brilliant fireballs and bolides flooding the land-
scape with their light. Many folk (quite understandably) viewed the spec-
tacle with fear, thinking that the end of the world had arrived. The world
did not, however, end that night. The display marked not an end but a
beginning: The beginning of a new phase in the science of meteors and,
ultimately, of comets.
Although a number of scientists continued to speculate that the great

meteor storm was of atmospheric origin, others noted that the shooting
stars appeared to radiate from a very small region of the sky located within
the constellation of Leo the Lion. This actually implied that they were being
caused by bodies approaching us along more or less parallel lines (rather
as railway lines appear to converge in the distance and snowflakes or rain-
drops seem to emerge from a point above the windshield of a motor vehi-
cle as we drive through a rain or snowstorm). This supported the view, put
forward long before by Halley, that meteors were actually small objects
arriving from outer space and burning up in our atmosphere through the
action of friction. The meteors that arrived in enormous numbers on that
early morning in 1833 were clearly traveling in more or less parallel orbits,
presumably in a cloud or stream through which Earth passed at that time.
Interestingly, the writings of Von Humboldt made mention of witnessing a
similar phenomenon from South America in 1799. Moreover, he also noted
that local residents of the area recounted seeing an equivalent event 33
years earlier, around the same time of year in 1766.
This great fall of meteors also drew attention to lesser falls that occur on an
annual timescale. August had long been noted for its numbers of meteors;
the so-called “tears of St. Laurence” because of their appearance around
the time of the festival of this martyred saint. If the paths of these meteors
are traced back, they are found to emanate from the constellation of
Perseus, hence their more formal title of the Perseid meteors. Other promi-
nent annual showers include the Lyrids of April. Even the Leonids continue
to provide a certain degree of activity each year, some years stronger than
others, though not reaching the tremendous levels of 1799 and 1833.
Another strong meteor storm did occur in 1866, however, which, although
not as intense as the one of 1833, at least demonstrated that the densest
portion of the stream apparently orbited the Sun on a comet-like path,
returning to the vicinity of Earth’s orbit approximately every 33 years.
Before the 1866 return of the grand Leonid display, however, a number of
other important developments had taken place. In 1826, a comet was dis-
covered by W. Biela and subsequently shown to be following a small ellipti-
cal orbit and having a period of just 6.6 years. It was also found to be
identical with a comet seen in 1772 and one observed in 1805 during a very
close approach to Earth. The comet was duly recovered in 1832, missed due
to poor location in 1839, but was found again in late 1845 accompanied,
surprisingly, by a secondary comet moving in unison with it (Fig. 3.1).
The two comets—by then somewhat further apart—were recovered again
in 1852 (Fig. 3.2), but neither has positively been identified since.
Fig. 3.1 Split comet Biela at its 1846 return. (Drawing by E. Weib)
16 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.2 Primary and secondary fragments of Comet Biela in 1852. (Drawing
by A. Secchi)
Something remarkable happened during the computed 1872 return, but

more about this shortly. Historically, the splitting and subsequent disap-
pearance of this comet demonstrated in spectacular fashion how unstable
these objects can be. Surely, they cannot be solid bodies, but instead must
be something far more flimsy.
Even while the saga of Biela’s Comet was unfolding, however, other discov-
eries were being made that contributed to the understanding of these
bodies. On April 5, 1861, A. E. Thatcher discovered a comet that moved
along an orbit very similar to the April Lyrid meteor stream. Then, on July
16 of the following year, a comet, which for a time became a fine naked-eye
object in the northern skies, was discovered by L. Swift and, 3 days later, by
H. Tuttle. Of even greater significance than its appearance was the surpris-
ing fact that its orbit turned out to closely match that of the August meteor
stream, the Perseids. Finally, a comet found by W. Tempel on December 19,
1865, and secondly by H. Tuttle on January 6, 1866, turned out to be mov-
ing in the orbit of the great Leonid meteor storms. The appearance of this
last comet heralded another strong Leonid display the following November.
Now, recall that Biela was also due back in 1872. It did not arrive, but
instead the sky was filled with meteors coming at the rate of about 6000
per hour, on November 27 of that year!
The answer to the dilemma of comet appearances seemed to have been

solved. They had to be nothing more than dense agglomerations of mete-
oric particles that in some instances slowly dissolved over time (like the
three comets of the 1860s) and on other occasions fell apart more or less
suddenly, as evidenced by Comet Biela.
As an aside, it is interesting to consider how fortuitous the discovery of

the three comets of the 1860s really was. Comet Thatcher, the Lyrid comet,
has a period of 415 years and even today is still traveling away from its
1861 perihelion. It has not yet reached aphelion. Swift-Tuttle, the Perseid
comet, has a somewhat shorter period of around 133 years and was next
observed in late 1992. On the other hand, Tempel-Tuttle of Leonid fame
has a relatively short period, in common with the Leonid meteor storms
themselves, of 33 years. However it was poorly placed and eluded obser-
vation during its returns of 1899 and 1933. Some photographic images
were obtained in 1965 during its next visit, but it was not until its most
recent apparition in 1998 that it again became sufficiently well placed for
discovery. Had it been missed in 1866, it probably would have remained
unknown until the 1998 return!
The model of comets as dense agglomerations of meteoroid-like particles

explained many features of these objects. Agglomerations of this nature
could remain stable over time, but they were also susceptible to disrup-
tions, possibly induced by collisions with large meteorites. They could lose
cohesion and diffuse away to invisibility, as some comets had been
observed to do, and they could also break up into two or more smaller
agglomerations in the manner of Comet Biela. And, of course, an agglom-
eration of this nature would naturally supply the material for meteor show-
ers, either through slow attenuation (as was apparently happening in the
cases of Tempel-Tuttle, Thatcher and Swift-Tuttle) or through sudden dis-
ruption, like Comet Biela. The model also explained why comets do not
behave like solid bodies. They do not behave like solid bodies because they
are not solid bodies! For these reasons, the “gravel bank” model, as it came
to be known, proved to be both popular and enduring.
The actual gravel-bank—the agglomeration of particles of varying sizes—

was considered to be held together by its mutual gravitation and to effec-
tively represent a miniaturized counterpart of a globular star cluster. This
body, which might be several hundreds of kilometers in diameter, was seen
as constituting the nucleus of the comet and was the only part that
18 Chapter 3
endured from one revolution to the next. As it approached the Sun, the
particles were warmed and released gas molecules, which spread out into
a far larger volume of space, typically several hundreds of thousands of
kilometers in diameter—even a million kilometers or more in extreme
cases as, for instance, the very large comet of 1811.
The rarefied gases in this huge but extremely low-density cloud are made
visible through the excitation of their constituent molecules by solar radia-
tion. This cloud constitutes the fuzzy nebulosity, or coma (from a Greek
word meaning “hair”), that is the chief visual characteristic of a comet. Fine
dust is also released as larger particles disrupt and, by reflecting and scat-
tering sunlight, add a second visual component to the coma. In reality,
most comets have two comas—one of gas and the other of dust—but
because these occupy the same volume of space, they are not visually dis-
tinguishable and are usually considered together.
Through the action of the pressure of sunlight, gas molecules and very
small dust particles are swept away from the coma into the tail. Later, it was
recognized that light pressure is not sufficient to account for the higher
velocities observed in the tails of ionized gas. The role of the solar wind, or
stream of ionized hydrogen boiling constantly off the Sun, came to be
appreciated. When a tail is present, the coma and nucleus together are
referred to as the head.
In broad terms, therefore, this model appeared to explain the appearance

and development of comets and to account quite well for the different
“parts” of these objects.
Nevertheless, it was not without its problems, chief of which concerned the
amount of gas that comets contain. The presence of gas itself was not a dif-
ficulty. Gas molecules trapped within the meteoritic stones are freed as the
agglomeration approaches the Sun and its constituent particles are
warmed. However, there is just so much gas that can be absorbed by mete-
oric stones! How can a comet such as Halley’s keep exhaling enough gas to
swell into comas hundreds of thousands of miles across and stretching into
tails tens of millions of miles long every 76 years for at least two millennia?
There were other difficulties as well. Certain features sometimes observed

within the inner regions of the coma are not readily explicable in the
gravel bank model. Some comets spurt bright jet-like features from their
nuclei, while features variously described as “envelopes” or “hoods” may
also be displayed, as are bright arcs or semi-circles that seem to ripple
outward from the nucleus (and about which more will be said during the
course of this book). Features of this nature, while maybe not impossible
to explain if enough assumptions are made, do not follow easily as a con-
sequence of the model.
Furthermore, the gravel-bank model found it difficult to explain how several

comets have managed to survive extremely close approaches to the Sun,
actually passing through the inner regions of the solar corona. More will be
said later about these so-called “sungrazers” (see Chapter 16 in this book), but
we will simply mention it here that they include among their number the most
brilliant and some of the most spectacular comets on record. Nevertheless, it
is hard to see how any of these objects could have survived their solar passage
if they were nothing more than agglomerations of particles.
For one thing, at the very small distances from the Sun reached by these
comets, even bodies several meters or tens of meters in diameter would be
evaporated by the extreme heat. Moreover, even if by some means they
avoided this fate, an agglomeration of material of the type envisioned,
although possibly capable of holding together under its mutual gravitation
when far from the Sun, would be totally overwhelmed by solar tidal effects
and, lacking any cohesive strength, be torn to pieces at sungrazing dis-
tances. Admittedly, the great sungrazing comet of 1882 (Fig. 3.3) did break
into several pieces, and (as we shall see in due course) most of the known
sungrazers have been shown to be fragments of a comet that disrupted dur-
ing earlier perihelion passages, but these facts give no support to the model.
If comets truly are agglomerations of particles, the sungrazers should do
more than merely break into several pieces that may return later as individ-
ual comets. They should be completely destroyed; simultaneously evapo-
rated and torn apart by a combination of extreme heat and solar tidal
effects. Moreover, in 1843 a sungrazer passed even closer to the Sun than the
one in 1882, yet there is no evidence that this one broke into fragments.
Around the middle of last century, two astronomers proposed radically

divergent comet models, each intended to overcome the difficulties in
the gravel-bank idea, albeit by taking very different approaches to the
problem.
20 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.3 The Great Comet of 1882, an example of a very intense dust

tail. The comet is shown here on November 7, 1882, as photographed
by David Gill
The first of these did not abandon the idea that comets are clouds of sepa-
rate particles, but the type of cloud and even the type of particles thought
to constitute these clouds differed from those envisioned by supporters of
the gravel-bank model. This concept, known colloquially as the sand bank
model, was proposed by Cambridge theoretical astronomer Raymond A.
Lyttleton in the early 1950s.
Lyttleton’s theory was in many respects a truly radical idea. It was not prin-
cipally a comet model as such but more a theory of how comets were
formed and came to be in the unusually eccentric elliptical orbits in which
they are found today. The actual physical model of comets themselves
came as a consequence of this broader picture.
Briefly stated, Lyttleton’s thesis proposed that comets were not original resi-
dents of the Solar System. Rather, they are formed whenever the Sun and its
planets pass through one of the diffuse clouds of dust that are known to
exist within the disc of the Milky Way Galaxy. Lyttleton argued that the
gravitational field of the Sun acts to force dust particles from the cloud into
a stream behind the Sun. This relatively high-density stream of particles
breaks up into discrete condensations that move inward toward the Sun
and may be trapped into very elongated orbits by the gravitational pertur-
bation of the planets. It is these condensations that Lyttleton identifies with
the comets. (The term “relative high density” must, of course, be understood
strictly in comparison with the extremely low density of the original cloud.
Both the stream and the cometary condensations within it would still be
considered as vacuums compared with Earth’s atmosphere at sea level!).
If such discrete cloudlets exist, and if they are identical with the comets,
these objects must be even more diffuse than the traditional gravel-bank
picture suggests. For one thing, there is no “nucleus” per se. The cloud may
be a little more condensed toward the center, but there is no “entity” there
distinct from the broader cloud. The essential part of a comet according to
this model is not the nucleus but the dust coma.
Whereas the particles within the gravel-bank model were thought to hold
together in an agglomeration by their mutual gravitational attraction,
Lyttelton’s proposed condensation of particles was too diffuse for mutual
gravitation to play any significant role. The clouds hold together simply
because their constituent particles follow very similar orbits around the Sun.
But the paths of the particles are not exactly the same, and far from the Sun the
orbits of the individual particles are separated by relatively wide margins.
However, at their respective perihelia, the orbits of the individual particles
more nearly converge, with the result that there are multiple particle collisions
close to the sunward section of the comet’s orbit. According to Lyttleton, these
particle collisions release large quantities of fine dust and even gas, and it is
this material that is swept away by solar radiation to form the tails of comets.
22 Chapter 3
Lyttleton even attempted an ingenious explanation for the sudden bright-

ness outbursts noted in some comets. He suggested that comets prone to
these events may actually consist of more than one simple cloud of parti-
cles and that on occasions the two clouds may pass through one another
as the comet orbits the Sun. When this happens, the rate of particle colli-
sion accelerates, large quantities of dust (and maybe of gas as well) are
liberated, and the event is observed from Earth as a sudden increase in the
comet’s brightness. Because the fine dust released reflects the Sun’s light
more efficiently than the main cloud of somewhat coarser particles, the
increase in light can be considerable, even if any contribution from
released gas is neglected. In fact, the largest outbursts known at the time
Lyttleton was writing involved a brightening of the continuous spectrum
of the comets concerned, indicative of large releases of dust rather than of
gas, in apparent agreement with his thesis. The first major outburst that
was principally due to an increase in gaseous emissions was that of Tuttle-
Giacobini-Kresak in 1973. “Gas outbursts” of that type were unknown to
Lyttleton when he put forward his theory and would have been difficult to
explain in terms of his proposed mechanism.
As possible observational support for his theory, Lyttleton pointed to an

apparent condensation at the end of the tail of Comet Holmes around the
time of its two great outbursts in 1892 and suggested that this may have
been the secondary cloud of particles that triggered the outbursts. He also
drew attention to the fact that the other comet most noted for its out-
bursts, Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 (now known as 29P/Schwassmann-
Wachmann) follows a nearly circular orbit between Jupiter and Saturn and
is therefore, like these planets, visible throughout its entire orbit. He sug-
gested that if it consisted of two or more clouds of particles, these could
periodically encounter each other at various places throughout the comet’s
orbit, accounting for the fact that the outbursts of this object are relatively
frequent and may occur at any point along its orbit, apparently unrelated
to its distance from the Sun.
Furthermore, at the time that Lyttleton was writing, a second comet

(Oterma) also followed an almost circular orbit albeit, unlike Schwassmann-
Wachmann, within the orbit of Jupiter, but had never been observed to
experience an outburst in brightness. Lyttleton suggested that if this
object consisted of a single cloud of particles, its light would remain stable,
despite the similarity between its orbit and that of Schwassmann-
Wachmann. (As an interesting aside, Comet Oterma experienced a pro-

longed encounter with Jupiter in the early 1960s, during which the
aphelion of its former low-eccentricity orbit became the perihelion of a
new orbit of greater eccentricity. Following this, the comet could no longer
be observed annually and was in fact lost until recovered as a very faint
object in 2001 on its way to perihelion in late 2002.)
Lyttleton’s theory was certainly attractive in so far as it attempted to

explain the origin, composition and major features of comets all in a single
blow. Unfortunately however, it had some glaring difficulties.
For one thing, because of the nature of the accretion stream envisioned,
most of the particle clouds (excepting the occasional one deflected follow-
ing a close approach to one of the major planets) must pass extremely
close to the Sun during their initial perihelion passage. In effect, they
would all experience what the so-called sungrazing comets must endure—
passage through the Sun’s inner corona. This, as Lyttleton admitted, would
result in the total vaporization of all their constituent particles, within sev-
eral hours actually transforming the entire comet from a cloud of solid
particles into a cloud of rarefied gas. He argued, however, that as the (now
gaseous) comet receded from its close encounter with the Sun, the cooling
gas cloud would re-condense back into particles, and the comet should
remain relatively unscathed. He even found evidence in favor of a gaseous
composition of comets passing extremely close to the Sun while observing
the disruption into several pieces of the sungrazing comet of 1882 and in a
paper written long after he first proposed his theory about the breaking up
of Comet West in 1976 after passing relatively close to the Sun (though
certainly not at sungrazing distances). Concerning the first of these comets,
Lyttleton wrote that observers of the time saw it “elongate into a brilliant
streak” that subsequently broke up into the separate condensations. That
wording agrees well with his ideas, but unfortunately is not supported by
the actual records of the time. The comet did not really “elongate” at all. It
split into several condensations that were connected by a bright filament
of material, something more reminiscent of the disruption and partial frag-
mentation of a solid body rather than the behavior of a filament of gas!
In any case, as his critics pointed out, this process envisioned by Lyttleton
would, during a period of several hours, transform the entire comet into a
form more readily associated with cometary tails. Furthermore, this would
24 Chapter 3
happen while it was passing through the region of the Solar System in
which solar radiation was at its most extreme. There appeared to be no way
that a comet could survive its close encounter of the solar kind. Even if
there was some unrecognized way that most comets could avoid such an
encounter at their first perihelion passage, the observed existence of sun-
grazing comets and the undisputed fact that at least some of these sur-
vived their ordeal was enough to cast strong doubt upon Lyttleton’s comet
model and, with it, his entire thesis.
There were other difficulties as well with the theory. Chiefly, the quantities
of gas observed in many comets did not sit well with the idea that these
bodies are essentially clouds of solid particles. Lyttleton argued that gas
can be released when particles strike each other at high velocity, but this
hardly seemed adequate to explain the composition of those comets that
display very strong gaseous emissions and hardly any continuum of sun-
light reflected from their dust component. If Lyttleton is correct, surely all
comets would show very strong continuous spectra with, at best, only a
few feeble lines of gaseous emissions superimposed upon it. Some comets
do fit this description, but they are in the minority. Many more are quite the
opposite. Some even appear to be almost wholly gaseous, with very little
of their mass being in the form of dust. These simply should not exist
according to Lytleton’s theory.
Also difficult to explain on this model are certain features seen from time
to time within the heads of comets. As briefly mentioned in citing the dif-
ficulties encountered by the gravel-bank model, some comets erupt well-
defined “jets” of material from the region of their nuclei, and structures
resembling hoods or envelopes are also observed in the comas of certain
objects. These latter might, at a stretch, be explained along Lyttleton’s lines
as wave-like concentrations of particles (although what might be causing
these waves is anybody’s guess), but something that apparently issues
from the “nucleus” (which, according to Lyttleton, is merely an optical
effect acquired by looking through the greatest depth of particles) is not at
all easy to explain. In short, Lyttleton’s sand bank model is no closer to
explaining these types of structures than the earlier gravel-bank one.
As a final word on Lyttleton’s theory, we note that most of the observa-

tional data on which it was based came from publications of the previous
century. This bias, in particular, governed his opinion that comets are very
diffuse and extended when far from the Sun and become more contracted
and condensed as they approach perihelion. This, of course, fits in well with
his notion of a contracting cloud of particles, but it contradicts more recent
observations, as we shall see in a moment. Lyttleton himself was not an
observational astronomer, as he readily admitted, and he also possessed a
certain nostalgia for the observational work on comets performed by the
astronomers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.
This work was, of course, largely visual. When Lyttleton put forward his
theory, comets had been far from a hot topic in astronomy for several dec-
ades. The revival of interest in them and the consequent renewal of
research that began around 1960 still lay in the future. Lyttleton’s work may
even be seen as one of the contributing motivations toward this renewed
interest. The downside of his early emphasis, however, was that the tele-
scopic work of astronomers such as Dr. Elizabeth Roemer were necessarily
not included in Lyttleton’s considerations. If they had been (as Roemer
herself pointed out) Lyttleton would not have stated that comets are highly
diffuse objects when far from the Sun. Visual observations might suggest
this, but the deeper photographic observations of Roemer and others
revealed a very different picture. The diffusing outer coma (which is all that
the visual observer could see) might have appeared very tenuous, but the
region close to the nucleus, too faint for visual telescopes, was typically
accessible to larger photographic instruments as a very condensed and
small object. Although the visual appearance may have been what was
expected of Lyttleton’s sand bank, Roemer’s images implied something
quite different. Something, indeed, more in agreement with the other, radi-
cally different, comet model put forward in the early 1950s, a model that
understood the nucleus of a comet to be a solid body of a distinctive kind.
Although the idea had been raised earlier, the year 1950 saw the first
developed presentation of the idea that a cometary nucleus was not an
agglomeration of individual small bodies but a single object having
dimensions comparable with those of a small asteroid (that is to say, from
a few hundreds of meters to several kilometers in diameter) and comprised
largely of ice, albeit mixed with a good deal of solid rocky material ranging
in size from dust motes to rocks. Most of the ice is familiar water-ice,
although there is also a quantity of “dry” ices, more volatile materials that
would be in a gaseous state at terrestrial temperatures (frozen carbon diox-
ide, carbon monoxide, methane, etc.).
26 Chapter 3
This comet model, officially known as the “icy conglomerate” model and
popularly as the “dirty snowball,” was proposed by Professor Fred Whipple,
and it marked a radical departure from both the gravel-bank and sand
bank conceptions of comets. Although Whipple’s original “dirty snowball”
is now viewed more as a “frozen mud-lump,” this, in essence, is the model
that became established as knowledge of comets increased through the
application of modern technology, not the least being in situ observations
of the nuclei of several comets via space probes. As more was learned
about the composition of these bodies, it became apparent that a good
deal of complex carbonaceous (that is to say, “organic”) material was also
present in the icy mixture and that, rather surprisingly (although quite
understandable in retrospect) the surface of the average cometary nucleus
does not have a “dirty white” appearance but is actually as black as soot!
The icy conglomerate model appeared, from the very start, to satisfactorily
account for the entire sweep of phenomena associated with comets. The
scenario presented by Whipple pictures a comet as essentially being a
small solid object composed largely of ices mixed together with a variety
of heat-resistant (refractory) materials. This solid body, the true “nucleus”
of the comet, is tiny compared with the planets, although the range of sizes
has actually been found to be quite extensive, from less than 10 m in the
very smallest comets to several tens of kilometers for large objects such as
Hale-Bopp and the comet of 1811.
Indeed, really enormous comets having diameters in excess of 100 km

orbit in the outer reaches of the planetary system, and there can be little
doubt that, from time to time, one of these giants wanders into the inner
Solar System and becomes trapped in a short period orbit. Nevertheless,
the icy nucleus envisioned by Whipple is a smaller body than the gravel-
bank of the earlier theory although, in common with the gravel-bank and
unlike Lyttleton’s sand bank, it is a real object persisting from one return to
the next and not simply an optical effect. The feature mistaken for the true
nucleus by the gravel-bank supporters was really the cloud of matter
released from the icy core and surrounding it as a cloud of relatively high
density. This central condensation is necessarily considerably larger than
the nucleus itself and tends to obscure the latter’s visibility.
The icy nucleus is the only part of a comet that persists from one return to
the next. Far from the Sun, these icy/rocky bodies are inert and have the
appearance of dark asteroids. But as they draw closer to the Sun, the lat-
ter’s warmth causes the surface ices to boil away into space (in the vac-
uum of outer space, even water-ice does not melt but instead turns
directly to water vapor), in the process releasing particles of refractory
material ranging in size from dust motes to boulders. In time, this cloud of
gas and dust surrounds the dark icy body as a huge but extremely rarefied
cloud of nebulosity.
As remarked earlier, most comets actually have two comas occupying the
same space—one composed of fluorescing gas and the other of dust. The
prominence of one or the other varies between comets and sometimes
even for the same comet at different parts of its orbit. That is to say, some
comets are predominantly “gassy,” others have a very high dust content,
and yet others pass from a dust-poor to a dust-rich phase (or vice versa)
during a single trip around the Sun. These differences—not easily explica-
ble in terms of either the gravel-bank or sand bank models—presumably
reflect differences in the surface composition or even in the texture of the
icy nucleus.
There is actually a third coma as well, albeit one discernible only in ultravio-
let light and observable from outside Earth’s atmosphere, but the discov-
ery of this added great support to the Whipple model. This is the neutral
hydrogen coma, first recorded by the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory
during its imaging of Comet Tago-Sato-Kosaka early in 1970.
Earlier, we stated that the visual comas of typical comets range up to sev-
eral hundreds of thousands of kilometers across and some even exceed a
million kilometers; larger than the Sun. But if these diameters seem large,
let it be said that they are dwarfed by the UV neutral hydrogen clouds sur-
rounding large comets. The first of these to be detected (that of Tago-Sato-
Kosaka, as already mentioned) measured at about a million kilometers in
diameter, yet that was not an especially large example. The hydrogen coma
of Comet Kohoutek in 1973/1974 measured some five million kilometers
across, nearly 4 times larger than the Sun. Even larger was the elongated
hydrogen coma of Comet Hale-Bopp. The long axis of this was measured at
150 million kilometers—equal to the distance between Earth and the Sun!
Although these features cannot be detected visually, and indeed they are
not observable by any means from the ground, their discovery, as earlier
28 Chapter 3
remarked, provided strong support for Whipple’s comet model. The most
likely origin of the hydrogen comprising them was through the photodis-
sociation of water vapor, and the amount observed in the neutral hydro-
gen coma implied that a lot of water had to be present, just as it would be
if the nucleus of a comet were largely composed of ice.
The formation of both the visible and the ultraviolet coma is therefore
readily explained along the lines of Whipple’s comet model. Relatively far
from the Sun, activity is low, and the resulting coma is weak and diffuse, as
Lyttleton noted, but if the comet is observed with a telescope of sufficient
aperture, the condensation surrounding the nucleus (rarely the actual icy
body itself) may be observed as a discrete object of the type that Roemer
described. As a comet approaches the Sun, the stronger solar radiation not
only causes more gas to boil away from the nucleus, it also breaks down
the gaseous molecules more rapidly through photodissociation. This
means that the lifetimes of these molecules is shorter; they do not survive
long enough to drift as far from the nucleus as those molecules released
when the comet was at a greater distance from the Sun, and in conse-
quence the coma contracts in diameter as well as becoming more intense
and centrally condensed. This explains the process that Lyttleton noted,
but, as we have seen, explained in an entirely different manner. Moreover,
because the comet’s gas is provided by the abundance of ice within the
nucleus and does not rely on the meager amount trapped within meteoric
particles, the gas-supply problem encountered by both the gravel-bank
and sand bank models is no longer an issue.
Other cometary phenomena that were either left unexplained or unsatis-

factorily explained by other comet models fell nicely into place according
to the icy model.
Although perhaps it may appear counterintuitive at first sight, Whipple’s

theory accounted for the survival of sungrazing comets. We might think
that an icy body would simply melt away near the Sun, and, indeed, small
sungrazing comets are observed to do just that! But larger icy objects,
although losing a lot of material through evaporation, still retain enough
bulk to be active at several returns. The lifetime of a sungrazing comet
must, of course, be severely limited, but a body 3 or 4 km in diameter
should be large enough to make several close passages of the Sun, even if
it loses tens of meters of girth each time. It would not be reduced to a cloud
of gas at perihelion in the manner expected for a gravel-bank or diffuse

sand bank. Moreover, as the ices evaporate, the surface of the nucleus is
chilled in the way that evaporation of sweat from the skin helps our bodies
not to overheat on a hot day. This ability of an icy object to “sweat” when
close to the Sun actually gives it a greater chance of avoiding disruptive
heat shock than a rocky body of the same size.
Whipple also demonstrated that, unlike a mere agglomeration of meteor-

itic stones, a solid icy body would also possess sufficient tensile strength to
hold together against the solar tidal effects unless it measured several tens
of kilometers in diameter. He even found that the gravity of such an object
was enough to add to its stability and assist its survival through perihelion.
On the other hand, disruption into a number of fragments (as observed in
1882 for example) could occur if there were fractures or weak regions in the
nucleus or if the shape of the nucleus departed significantly from the
spherical. As there is no reason to expect an object of the size of a typical
comet nucleus to be spherical, fragmentation of sungrazers is not to be
unexpected, although it may happen. This accords well with observation.
A comet does not need to be a sungrazer to split into two or more pieces,
and this is also readily explained in the icy model. As the nucleus slowly
evaporates and shrinks during the course of many passages through the
inner Solar System, it may become increasingly irregular in shape, just as
an iceberg can take on a variety of shapes as it moves into warmer waters.
And, again like an iceberg in our oceans, this can lead to an eventual
breakup into several smaller lumps of ice. This could happen “quietly,” with-
out any surge in activity of the comet. On the other hand, tidal effects
resulting from a close passage of a major planet (Jupiter being the most
obvious) or a close approach to the Sun, may result in a more violent break-
ing apart of the nucleus, in the process exposing fresh internal ices and
triggering an outburst in the comet’s brightness.
The same thing may happen if a comet is struck by another body in space
or if the development of a pocket of gas triggers an eruption of sufficient
violence to blow the nucleus apart. Recent observations of some comets
(principally 8P/Tuttle by radar as it passed relatively close to Earth in 2008
and 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in situ by the Rosetta space probe in
2015/2016) reveal dumbbell-shaped nuclei suggestive of two initially inde-
pendent comets that fused together in a low-velocity collision. By contrast,
30 Chapter 3
calculations of the past orbits of two short-period comets, 42P/Neujmin

and 53P/van Biesbroeck, suggest that these two were once a single object
that broke apart in March 1845. Perhaps proto-Neujmin/van Biesbroeck
was a double-lobed object like Tuttle or Churyumov-Gerasimenko, in
which the two segments eventually regained their initial independence.
Some other comet splits might be similar. Observationally speaking, there
is evidence for both gentle and more dramatic splits. Sometimes a comet
will become double without any obvious brightness outburst, whereas
other splits are accompanied by sudden and sometimes quite extreme
outbursts in the luminosity of the split comet.
Yet, just as some splits are not accompanied by brightness outbursts, not
all brightness outbursts correlate with nucleus disruptions. This is also in
agreement with the icy comet model. As refractory material is lifted from
the nucleus by escaping gases, a certain percentage of this material will fall
back onto the nucleus’ surface and may eventually cover it completely. If
that happens, cometary activity could be completely choked off, and the
nucleus would effectively be transformed into an asteroid. But if the sur-
face is not completely covered, activity will become confined to certain
regions of the nucleus, and the comet will appear less bright than the
nucleus size alone may suggest.
If, for some reason, a certain region of the insulating crust is broken away
(maybe a meteorite impact or an erupting gas pocket beneath the insulat-
ing layer), fresh ice will become exposed to the Sun’s heat, and the comet’s
activity will suddenly increase. A large outburst might result if enough ice
is exposed, even if no sizable fragment breaks away from the nucleus.
Milder outbursts may also have their origin in solar activity increasing the
excitation of gases in the coma, w ithout anything unusual happening at
the comet’s nucleus at all. Both possibilities are in good agreement with
the Whipple model.
Similarly, unusually active regions on the surface of an icy nucleus nicely

explain the appearance of jets, envelopes and hoods within a comet’s
coma. These more or less unusual features, which (as we remarked earlier)
are not readily explained by either the sand bank or gravel-bank theories,
follow quite naturally from the icy model. Thus, a localized but especially
icy spot on the nucleus’ surface suddenly bursts into activity as the rotation
of the nucleus brings it into the Sun’s light and warmth. A fountain of gas
(maybe laden with fine dust as well) shoots skyward, giving the appear-
ance of a “jet.” As the nucleus continues to rotate, this stream of material
bends as it also increases in length, forming an envelope or hood-like
structure within the coma (Figs. 3.4 and 3.5).
Fig. 3.4 Several coma and tail features of Comet Coggia are shown here in
this drawing by Robert Ball, made in 1874. Note the parabolic hoods, fan-
shaped bright segment on the sunward side of the central condensation,
the sharp central condensation itself, and a “shadow of the nucleus” down
the central region of the tail
32 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.5 Comet 2012 S1 (ISON) displaying tail spine and sunward jet as
imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope on April 10, 2013. (Image courtesy
of STSci and NASA)
The existence of meteor streams is also readily explained by the icy model.
Meteoroids are shed by comets as the nuclear ices boil away and release
the myriad of solid particles embedded within them. In a sense, the
nucleus of most comets becomes surrounded by what indeed might be
called a gravel-bank (observed as the central condensation), but according
to Whipple’s model, this is a only temporary feature resulting from the
activity of the smaller nucleus and not the feature of a comet that pre-
serves its identity from one apparition to the next, as the earlier theory
required. As this “gravel bank” disperses along the orbit of the comet, a
meteor stream is formed. Each return of the comet lays down a fresh track
of meteoroids, and it is not surprising that the newest ones (from the most
recent returns of the comet) will be those having a higher density of parti-
cles, other things being equal. These are the ones more likely to produce
strong meteor showers or meteor storms, while the older and more dif-
fused filaments of particles (which may eventually stretch right around the
comet’s orbit) provide the material for the weaker annual showers (Fig. 3.6).
Fig. 3.6 Infrared image of Comet Encke and dust trail. (Image courtesy of
NASA JPL Caltech, Univ. of Minnesota, Spitzer IR image)
The icy model also clarified a controversial subject concerning the orbital
motion of comets. In a significant number of instances, strict gravitational
computations of their orbits are slightly, but consistently, in error. This was
noticed as long ago as the first half of the nineteenth century, most notably
in the case of the very short-period comet Encke, which always managed
to arrive at its perihelion passage about 2.5 h earlier than predicted by the
gravitational solutions alone. It seemed as if the comet was being retarded
in its motion around the Sun, causing its orbit to steadily shrink. It was
hypothesized at the time that this might be due to friction with some sort
of “resisting medium.” But there was no other obvious evidence that such a
resisting medium existed. Furthermore, such an explanation began to look
even more dubious when other comets were found to arrive at perihelion
consistently later than expected, as if something was accelerating, rather
34 Chapter 3
than retarding, their motion through space and actually enlarging their
orbits. Some astronomers in the twentieth century, including such promi-
nent comet experts as Elizabeth Roemer, attempted to explain away these
“non-gravitational” effects in terms of systematic errors arising in instances
where the center of mass of a comet was displaced from the geometric
center of the coma, as can occur in the case of fan-shaped or elongated
comas. (Encke’s comet, by the way, does typically display a fan-shaped
condensation when near perihelion, a point duly noted by those astrono-
mers skeptical of the reality of non-gravitational effects.)
Nevertheless, non-gravitational effects are readily explained by the icy

conglomerate model. They are due to the thrust experienced by the
nucleus of escaping gas and dust as surface ices sublimate. Whether
the thrust delays or a
ccelerates the comet depends on the direction of the
rotation of the nucleus—whether the direction of the thrust is or is not in
the direction of the comet’s orbital motion. Small but active comets are
more affected by this phenomenon than large and more sedate ones, and
precession of the poles of a rotating nucleus can bring about considerable
changes in the effects over time, even alterations from decreasing to
increasing the comet’s orbital period and vice versa.
Another feature of comets that any model of these bodies must explain is
the one for which they are best known—the tail. Not surprisingly, the icy
conglomerate model fares very well in this respect also, as we shall now see.
The Formation of Tails 35
CHAPTER 4
THE FORMATION OF TAILS
Although the coma is the chief distinguishing feature of a comet, in the

popular mind these objects are most commonly associated with the tails,
which many of their number display. Not all comets grow observable tails,
and others sport faint appendages only discernible on photographs and
CCD images. Nevertheless others sprout tails that are truly magnificent
both in size and intensity. The tail of Comet Ikeya-Seki (1965), for example,
extended up to a distance equal to that of Earth and the Sun, while ions
from the tail of Comet Hyakutake in 1996 were detected by spacecraft at
over 3 times that distance from the comet’s head. Then, in 2007, the great
Comet McNaught extended a magnificent tail as long as that of Ikeya-Seki
but around 65 million km wide!
It is truly amazing that something as small as a cometary nucleus can be

the source of such enormous features, but the model put forward by
Whipple explains it perfectly. Comet tails are simply the result of an inter-
play of solar radiation and the stream of protons (hydrogen atoms stripped
of their electron) that constantly boil out of the solar corona, with the gas
and fine dust released from the icy nucleus into the coma. The clear supe-
riority of the icy model over its rivals is shown by the fact that the brighter
periodic comets are known to sprout long gaseous tails time and again as
they near the Sun. Unless they carried a great deal of gas frozen in their
nuclei, bright and active periodic comets such as Halley, P ons-Brooks and
Swift-Tuttle would have lost this ability centuries ago.
Just as cometary comas come in both dust and gas varieties, so also do
comet tails. Here, however, the two are more easily distinguishable, except
for the times when Earth is in the plane of the comet’s orbit. At such times,
both gas and dust tails are superimposed one upon the other. At other times,

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_4
36 Chapter 4
the tails are quite distinct. Those composed of dust (such as the grand ones
sported by Ikeya-Seki and McNaught) are actually streams of tiny solid parti-
cles being swept away from the comet’s nucleus by the pressure of sunlight.
Because these particles are not of uniform size, some are accelerated to
higher velocities by radiation pressure, and these will travel away from the
comet along trajectories more nearly resembling (albeit falling short of)
straight lines. Larger particles will be less affected by radiation pressure
and relatively more susceptible to solar gravitational attraction. Their tra-
jectories will display a much stronger curve, tending to fall back closer to
the orbit of the comet. The result of these various trajectories is the broad,
curving shape of the dust tail, which in the case of bright appendages of
this type can be truly beautiful (Fig. 4.1). However, although the trajecto-
ries of particles of various sizes display radically diverse curvatures, all of
the trajectories remain essentially within the same plane, the plane of the
comet’s orbit. This means that dust tails, although they can be very broad
(as in the case of Comet McNaught of 2007), are quite thin. Weak dust tails
are for this reason difficult to see if present face-on. The paucity of particles
coupled with the shallow depth through the tail means that their com-
bined light is too weak to stand out against the background sky. These tails
Fig. 4.1 Comet Donati (1858) displaying curving Type II dust tail and
straight Type I tail rays. (Image courtesy of E. Weib)
are better seen when viewed edge-on, a situation that occurs when Earth
passes through the plane of the comet’s orbit. The greater depth of parti-
cles (viewed edge-on along the entire width of the tail) makes them easier
to see; however the curvature of the tail (being in the line of sight in these
circumstances) is lost, and the tail appears straight.
Very heavy particles (pebble- to boulder-sized) are essentially unaffected

by solar radiation pressure and simply spread backward along the comet’s
orbit. These are the particles that form meteoroid streams along the orbits
of comets, but if they are sufficiently numerous, they may be seen as a tail
having a very strong curvature (Fig. 4.2). When Earth is close to the plane of
the comet’s orbit, projection effects cause these tails to appear (apparently)
as a sunward pointing anti-tail, classically taking the form of a narrow spike
pointing in the opposite direction to that of the main tail (Fig. 4.3).
The other class of tail is the gas tail—more accurately the ion, or plasma, tail,
as the species comprising it are ionized and carried along by the solar wind
or stream of protons (ionized hydrogen atoms) that continuously boil off
the corona of the Sun. Observations of plasma tails actually brought about
the recognition of this solar phenomenon, once it was realized that the
accelerations measured by discrete knots of gaseous material within them
far exceeded anything that could be achieved by radiation pressure alone.
Because the ionized tail particles are accelerated to higher velocities than
the particles in dust tails these tails are oriented more nearly in the anti-
solar direction. The very long tail of Comet Hyakutake was one such
appendage. Because of their ionized nature, plasma tails are very suscepti-
ble to variations and reversals in the interplanetary magnetic field and
make fine “solar wind-socks” for detecting changes in this “wind.” We will
look later at the changes that the solar wind can bring about in plasma tails.
Delicate structures known as rays are typically a feature of this type of tail.
Rays appear as long, thin, threads of somewhat greater intensity than the
background tail and diverge in a fan-like formation from the central region
of the coma (Fig. 4.4). Sometimes ion tails first appear as a single ray
emerging from the center of a globular coma. In many smaller comets, the
tail does not develop beyond this stage (Fig. 4.5).
The different types of tails are known as Type I (plasma tails), Type II (“nor-
mal” dust tails) and Type III (the highly curved dust appendages) (Fig. 4.6).
38 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.2 Comet 2014 Q1 (PANSTARRS), July 18, 2015. Note the straight and
somewhat turbulent Type I tail, the short and featureless Type II tail and the
broad Type III dust tail at a large angle from the other two. Several broad
and diffuse bands may be discerned in the Type III tail. (Image courtesy of
M. Jaeger. Used with permission)
Fig. 4.3 Comet 2007 N3 (Lulin) on January 31, 2009, displaying a straight
and narrow anti-tail. (Image courtesy of Joseph Brimacombe. Used with
permission)
40 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.4 Comet 2012 S1 (ISON) displayed a broad Type I tail comprised of
many rays diverging from the central coma, as shown on this November 15,
2013, photograph. (Image courtesy of TRAPPIST national telescope, ESO, La
Silla Observatory)
Fig. 4.5 Comet Encke possessed a Type I tail consisting of a single ray in this
image from the MESSENGER spacecraft at Mercury on November 11, 2013.
(Image courtesy of NASA/JHUAP/Carnegie Institute of Washington)
42 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.6 Depiction of tail types and their relationship to meteoritic dust
trails of comets. Note the considerable angle between the Type I and Type II
tails. The section of the line marking the dust trail, lying to the right of the
comet head, is where Type III tails may become visible. (Image courtesy of
NASA Ames Research Center/K. Jobse and P. Jenniskens)
The Origin of Comets 43
CHAPTER 5
THE ORIGIN OF COMETS
It was not only the physical nature of comets that so long remained a mys-
tery. Their origin was also shrouded in obscurity, and the various hypoth-
eses put forward to explain this were to some degree influenced by beliefs
about their nature.
Omitting the very early notion of Aristotle that comets were some sort of
eruption from the surface of Earth or Galileo’s suggestion that they are merely
optical phenomena not too dissimilar to rainbows, theories of their origin can
be divided into two broad types—those that look for an interstellar origin
and those that understand these objects to be indigenous inhabitants of the
Solar System. Within these two broad categories, there are many varieties.
For a long while, the idea that comets were formed in interstellar space
enjoyed a wide following. There is a certain emotional attractiveness about
this idea in so far as it implies that in observing comets we are in a sense
“sampling” the wider universe beyond our own Solar System.
Theories Based on Interstellar Origin
The simplest version of this hypothesis was the one put forward initially by
P. Laplace in 1813 and further developed toward the end of the nineteenth
century by H. Von Seeliger and L. Fabry. Essentially, this theory saw comets
as inherently interstellar bodies, some of their number from time to time
being sufficiently deflected by solar gravity so as to pass close enough to
Sun and Earth to become briefly visible in our telescopes.
As initially conceived by Laplace, the interstellar comets were understood

as moving through space with effectively the same velocity as the Sun
itself. In other words, their velocity relative to that of the Solar System was

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_5
44 Chapter 5
thought to be zero or very close to zero, so that when they enter the plan-
etary system, their velocity is close to that expected for an object falling
from infinity with an initial velocity of zero. In other words, they pass
through the planetary system along parabolic trajectories. Superficially,
this appears to fit the observational facts. Most comets do indeed have
orbits that are close to parabolas. At the time Laplace put forward this
model, only Halley was positively known to have an elliptical orbit, and this
comet and any other similar “freaks” that might exist could be dismissed as
objects captured during very close planetary encounters.
However, further consideration of the model revealed that all was not well
with Laplace’s version. Significantly, he overlooked one very important fact,
namely, the Sun’s proper motion relative to these hypothetical interstellar
comets. This is not, as Laplace assumed, necessarily zero, a fact pointed out
in 1860 by J. Schiaparelli. Once this factor is taken into consideration, the
distribution of velocities of interstellar comets relative to the Sun inevitably
results in a high proportion of strongly hyperbolic orbits. They will not be
all hyperbolic. Some will really have very small velocities relative to that of
the Sun, and others will have been captured into elongated ellipses. But the
fact remains that distinctly hyperbolic orbits should be common among
them. Hyperbolic orbits per se are not, in fact, unusual for these objects, but
all of those determined to date have been only slightly over the parabolic
limit, and of these, only a minority cannot be accounted for in terms of the
gravitational perturbations by the large planets.
A comet entering the inner planetary system along a very eccentric ellipti-
cal orbit can be given a slight gravitational boost by Jupiter or Saturn and
accelerated to beyond the parabolic limit. Computing the orbits of these
comets backward in time reveals, in the majority of instances, that the
original path was elliptical. In many instances, a forward calculation of the
barycentric, rather than the heliocentric, orbit (that is to say, the comet’s
orbit relating to the barycenter or center of gravity of the entire Solar
System and not of the Sun itself) also shows the hyperbolic orbit trans-
forming back into an ellipse of a very long period.
Unless they have experienced a strong planetary perturbation (such as

happened in the case of Comet Bowell in 1980, whose orbit was boosted to
a relatively pronounced hyperbolic eccentricity), most comets appear to
follow elliptical orbits under the gravitational attraction of the Solar System
as a whole, even if their heliocentric orbits closer to the Sun can at times be
slightly hyperbolic. Where the original orbit continues to yield a hyperbolic
eccentricity, the hyperbolic excess is so slight that very few astronomers
now interpret it in terms of interstellar origin. A combination of observa-
tional error and non-gravitational effects is a more probable explanation.
A modified form of the interstellar theory of comet origins suggests that

these objects form in interstellar clouds and were captured by the Solar
System during a past passage, or several past passages, through these
nebulae. N. Bobrovnikoff, for example, thought that the Sun’s retinue of
comets was captured in one fell swoop when the Solar System passed
through a comet-laden interstellar cloud sometime within the last million
years. He arrived at this timeline through his investigation of a sample of
94 comets, which he concluded could not have been residents of the Solar
System for more than this period of time. Although the type of
Sun/interstellar cloud encounters envisioned by Bobrovnikoff could hap-
pen many times during the lifetime of the Solar System, he appears to have
believed that at least the present cache of comets resulted from a single
encounter and that the Sun’s cometary population is only a temporary
feature on the timescale of the existence of the Solar System.
This hypothesis has the advantage over the latter in so far as, assuming the
capture process not to actually be taking place at present, there is no conflict
with the lack of obviously hyperbolic orbits. Nevertheless, details of the
process whereby comets could be captured by the Sun are not clear. In fact,
one of the supporters of this theory, F. Nolke, attempted to show that com-
ets within an interstellar cloud can only be captured by the Sun and incorpo-
rated within the Solar System if they encounter a resisting medium. This he
considered to be the general interstellar “haze” of dust and gas. It is difficult
to understand, though, how so thin a medium could significantly assist in
the capture of the type of objects that modern research shows comets to be.
Furthermore, the question as to whether objects having the properties of

Whipple’s icy conglomerates could form in enormous numbers within the
very diffuse environment of interstellar clouds is another matter entirely.
In view of the low density of the material composing these clouds, the
condensation of cometary nuclei does not seem very credible. An excep-
tion would be in regions of star formation and, in particular, within the
proto-stellar globules themselves. Comets might have a better chance of
46 Chapter 5
forming in the immediate vicinity of new stars, but as these are also the
places where planets are expected to form, this scenario implies that they
formed in the region of the early Solar System as well and that the comets
we see today are therefore more likely to have always been members of the
Sun’s family and not objects captured from interstellar space!
As we earlier saw, the theory of Lyttleton included a new version of this

“capture from interstellar clouds” idea, although in his theory the comets
were not originally denizens of the clouds themselves but were formed as
a consequence of the process by which the material comprising the clouds
through which the Solar System passed was accreted by the Sun. This
avoided the problems of accounting for the formation of comets in inter-
stellar space as well as explaining the lack of hyperbolic orbits. However, as
we saw, the comet model to which it led was inadequate to explain many of
the properties of these objects. The accretion process described by Lyttleton
was clearly not capable of forming the sort of objects that Whipple’s theory
required and, as this latter comet model became increasingly accepted,
Lyttleton’s accretion model of comet formation fell out of favor.
In the face of the difficulties raised by the theory, not all astronomers sub-
scribed to the idea that comets came from interstellar space. Some were
convinced that they had their origin within the Solar System. But where in
the Solar System did they originate, and by what means were they formed?
Theories Based on Solar System Origin
One idea, championed, for example, by Soviet astronomer Sergi

Vsekhsvyatskij, held that they were ejected by the giant planets, in particu-
lar by Jupiter. The existence of families of comets associated with these
planets (and especially with Jupiter) was seen as supporting evidence for
this theory. Other astronomers who rejected the theory of planetary ejec-
tion saw these families as evidence that the giant planets had gravitation-
ally captured near-parabolic comets from the general field population.
However, the capture of near-parabolic comets into short-period ellipses,
while superficially plausible, ran into difficulties when one tried to work
out the process in detail, and this was seen by supporters of the ejection
hypothesis as evidence in favor of their thesis.
Nevertheless, the planetary ejection theory faced several serious difficul-

ties of its own. For a start, the energy required to launch an object the size
of a comet from Jupiter was not inconsiderable. Besides the existence of
comets themselves, is there any evidence that eruptions of the required
magnitude occur on that planet? One may look at the Great Red Spot as
possible evidence of a violent event in the not-too-distant past, but there
is no real reason to think that anything violent caused it. In any case, this
smacks of trying to explain one unknown in terms of another!
The lack of evidence of recent violent events on Jupiter presented a special

problem for Vsekhsvyatskij’s version of the theory, as this astronomer
argued that the members of Jupiter’s comet family had very short lives,
fading out after only a few centuries, or even decades, of activity. With
maybe a few longer-lived exceptions, the majority of the short-period com-
ets observed today are not the same as those belonging to Jupiter’s family
during, say, the lifetimes of Newton and Halley, and most of the contempo-
rary ones will be gone 200 or 300 years into the future. With such brief lives,
Jupiter’s comets must be being continually replaced, unless today’s stock is
atypical and a strong departure from the steady-state population. Either
way, however, if these objects were ejected from Jupiter, the ejections
must have taken place in recent historical times and may even be in pro-
gress today, especially if the present population truly does represent a
steady state. Yet nothing about the appearance of Jupiter gives any hint of
this. More recent research has, admittedly, found that the majority of
short-period comets are not nearly as short-lived as Vsekhsvyatskij
thought, but the essential problems with his theory nevertheless remain.
Moreover, assuming that the comets are ejected from deep within the
planet, what prevents them from being destroyed by friction as they pass
upward through the vast atmosphere? The impact of the fragments of the
comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 upon Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1993 demon-
strated how destructive the effects of a dense atmosphere on an incoming
comet can be. An ejected comet should not fare much better!
The existence of families of comets associated with each of the giant planets,
with the exception of the well-established one belonging to Jupiter, has now
been largely rejected. If any of the planets is responsible for the existence of
comets, it is likely to be Jupiter alone. But why it should differ from, say,
Saturn, in possessing this comet-ejecting characteristic is not at all obvious.
48 Chapter 5
Vsekhsvyatskij himself later backed away from the idea that comets are
ejected from the giant planets themselves. Instead, he postulated that the
real sources of ejection are the major satellites of these planets, in particu-
lar, the larger moons of Jupiter. Moving the source of comet ejection from
Jupiter to its satellites overcomes the difficulty of supplying enough
energy for the comet to achieve the planet’s escape velocity. Likewise, it
saves the escaping comet from being destroyed through friction with the
planet’s vast atmosphere. However, nothing remotely resembling a comet
has been observed departing from any of the satellites of the giant planets,
and, indeed, it is very difficult to understand how an object resembling an
icy conglomerate could originate in such a way.
It is interesting to note, however, that Vsekhsvyatskij made two predictions

based upon this theory. He predicted that extensive volcanism occurs on
the moons of the giant planets (by which cometary bodies are ejected) and
that some of the volcanic debris from Jupiter’s moons would end up in
orbit around the planet—in short, that Jupiter should possess a ring simi-
lar to a fainter version of the great ring system of Saturn. In fact, each of
these predictions has been verified. The Jovian ring is very much as
Vsekhsvyatskij envisioned, and varying degrees of volcanic activity have
been discovered on several satellites of the outer planets, although there
is no hint of anything powerful enough to fling comet-sized bodies into
space. The most active of all the satellites—Io, the innermost of Jupiter’s
four largest moons—displays a greater degree of volcanic activity than any
other known body, although even it is incapable of ejecting comets and is,
in any event, devoid of water. Even if it were capable of throwing large bod-
ies into space, these would not be icy conglomerates. Moreover, it would
seem to be a very tall order to expect a small object such as Io to supply the
vast number of comets that we now know to exist within the Solar System.
Although it encountered many difficulties and is now known to be incor-

rect, the idea that comets were ejected from other bodies was certainly not
confined to Vsekhsvyatskij and, in a sense, could even be said to date back
to Aristotle in so far as he saw comets as having been ejected from Earth.
Early in the twentieth century Crommelin hypothesized that at least some
comets might have been ejected from the Sun and suggested a possible
association with solar prominences. During the closing years of the previ-
ous century, one astronomer noted that the aphelia of the Kreutz sungraz-
ing family of comets lay close to Sirius on the celestial dome and wondered
if they may have been ejected from this star! The great difference in the
distance of Sirius and the aphelia of the Kreutz comets certainly rules this
suggestion out of consideration, but underlying it was the apparent
assumption that comets might have been ejected from the stars, presum-
ably including the Sun. (It would actually have been somewhat more cred-
ible had he suggested that these comets may have been ejected from the
Sun, a la Crommelin, although neither suggestion would be—putting it
mildly—consistent with the icy conglomerate model!)
A different form of planetary origin for the comets has been considered
from time to time. It has been hypothesized that perhaps these objects have
not so much originated as ejections from planets or other bodies but that
they are fragments of a world that was catastrophically disrupted!
Specifically, it has been suggested that a planet once existed between the
orbits of Mars and Jupiter but for some reason exploded or was otherwise
shattered and that the remnants of this object constitute both the popula-
tion of comets and asteroids that we see today. This theory was championed
in the early 1950s by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort and was revived in a new
form toward the end of last century by the controversial T. Van Flandern.
The shattered planet hypothesis has few adherents nowadays, as observa-

tional evidence mounts against it. However, Oort’s version is historically
important in so far as he arrived at this hypothesis because it seemed (at the
time) to be a good explanation for the very odd distribution that he found
among the orbits of comets having very long periods. To this distribution,
and the consequences emerging from its discovery, we shall now turn.
A Reservoir of Comets! 51
CHAPTER 6
A RESERVOIR OF COMETS!
The year 1950, as well as seeing the publication of Whipple’s icy conglom-
erate model, was also the year that saw an equally important breakthrough
in our understanding of the dynamics of the Sun’s system of comets, which,
in turn, had important ramifications for the theory of their origin. Somewhat
ironically, this breakthrough had also been anticipated earlier, just as
Whipple’s model of the physical nature of comets had been.
The first hint that there was something unusual about the distribution of
the orbits of comets having very long periods came when Oort plotted the
orbits of 19 of those for which a sufficient arc of accurate positions had
been determined and found that 10 of them had aphelia clustered at simi-
lar distances beyond 50,000 AU from the Sun—that is to say, about one-
fifth of the distance to the nearest star. A second study involving a larger
number of comets 3 years later also revealed the same clustering tendency
at vast distances from the Sun.
From this data, Oort concluded that there existed an extended “cloud” or
“sphere” of comets at distances approximating 50,000 AU and that those
we observe arriving in orbits of very long periods represent objects that
have been deflected from this cloud by the gravitational perturbations of
passing stars. Some of the perturbed comets are deflected outward and
are lost to interstellar space, without having come close to the Sun. Others,
however—the ones that may become visible to astronomers here on
Earth—are deflected inward, where they sweep around the Sun on
immensely elongated elliptical orbits. The effect of the gravitational tug of
the planets on these objects means that very few will return again to the
distant comet cloud on the same orbit and come in from there a second
time hundreds of thousands of years in the future. More likely, the orbits of
most of these comets will either have their eccentricity increased to a
slightly hyperbolic level and leave the Solar System altogether or they will

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_6
52 Chapter 6
have their orbital eccentricity decreased, contracting to an ellipse of

shorter (though still very long) period.
The other comets in Oort’s two samples that did not move along orbits
extending out to such great distances were, presumably, representative of
those making their second or subsequent returns to the inner Solar
System.
The vast cloud or sphere of comets postulated by Oort had been, as men-
tioned above, anticipated by Estonian astronomer Ernst Opik as early as
1932, but the idea did not become widely accepted until after Oort’s work.
The “cloud” is now usually referred to as the Oort Cloud, or sometimes as
the Opik-Oort Cloud.
Opik apparently thought that comets may have formed in situ within the
cloud. As he wrote in the late 1950s, the comets may have been in the cloud
“since the beginning; since the Solar System formed from a nebula” and
opined that they may be the remnants of that nebula itself. It is not likely,
however, that there would have been sufficient material so far from the
center of the pre-solar nebula for objects—even those the size of comets—
to form.
As we saw in the previous section, however, Oort took a different view,

arguing that comets probably represented material from the region of the
Asteroid Belt, the remnants of a planet that once orbited that region but
which had subsequently been shattered. This presumably happened in the
early days of the Solar System, and over the ages since this planetary dis-
aster, most of the material had been ejected from that region by the gravi-
tational influence of Jupiter. Most of the ejected fragments, he reasoned,
would have been accelerated to hyperbolic velocities and lost forever to
interstellar space, but a sufficient number would have fallen just short of
these velocities, not quite escaping from the Sun’s influence. These became
the fragments that currently populate the Oort Cloud.
Initially, Oort thought of comets as being monolithic rocky objects that

produced comas as their outer surfaces crumbled under the influence of
solar heat, but this model was quickly superseded by the more satisfactory
icy conglomerate one published soon after the appearance of Oort’s own
work. (Nevertheless, there remains some validity in the monolith model,
though not as it applies to what we might term “classical” comets. Certain

asteroids, in particular Phaethon, the parent body of the Geminid meteor
shower, can act as “rock comets”—displaying a degree of cometary activity
caused by the thermal stress of hydrated clay-like minerals on their sur-
faces in a manner not too dissimilar from that envisioned by Oort!)
The association of comets and asteroids, implied by Oort’s theory of

cometary origins, nevertheless gave rise to one interesting possibility.
Taking on board the icy conglomerate model, some astronomers sug-
gested that comets were the frozen remains of the atmosphere of the
hypothetical shattered planet, the fragments of its solid body constituting
the rocky asteroids. An ingenious suggestion indeed, but one that has
failed to withstand the twin tests of time and continuing research.
On the other hand, Oort’s idea concerning the distant reservoir of comets,
at least in its general form, is widely accepted today. Based on increasing
evidence of the composition of comets, these bodies are now believed to
have formed in the outer planetary system and to have been ejected into
the Oort Cloud by planetary perturbations. The cloud itself is thought to
extend from around 20,000 to 50,000 AU. Those comets arriving from the
cloud for the first time appear to hail from a region between about 40,000
and 50,000 AU. Those closer to the Sun are held too tightly to be disturbed
by typical stellar perturbations and galactic tides, while any that may have
orbited beyond 50,000 AU are likely to have been swept away into the
depths of the galaxy by now. The earlier idea that the cloud extended all
the way out to 100,000 AU is unlikely. The number of comets estimated to
populate the cloud ranges from some 1011 to 1012, the smaller of these
numbers equaling the number of stars in our galaxy!
Oort early noted the drop in numbers between comets coming in for the first
time (“dynamically new comets” as they are known) and those with smaller
orbits that are presumably making their second or subsequent approach,
and he concluded that the attrition rate among the dynamically new ones
must be high, with the majority fading out after their first perihelion passage
within the inner planetary system. Alternatively, the suggestion has been
made that we are, at the moment, experiencing an abnormal influx of new
objects (a “comet shower”). By the way “at the moment” probably extends
beyond the whole of recorded human history thus far and equally far into
the future, so this does not suggest a very transitory phenomenon!
54 Chapter 6
Although it is not impossible that we are in the midst of a comet shower, a

1979 study by Paul Weissman found that the observed distribution of
dynamically new and dynamically older comets of very long period can be
matched if about 10 % fade out following their initial perihelion passage
and a further 4 % fade away on their second or subsequent passages. That
is fairly consistent with the observed behavior of comets.
Not all comets come from the Oort Cloud however. It was initially thought
that those having very short periods, such as the ones belonging to
Jupiter’s family, were captured from the general field of long-period
objects; however this idea ran into problems (as briefly mentioned earlier),
not the least in attempting to account for the consistently small orbital
inclinations of the short-period comets. Entering the inner planetary sys-
tem from the approximately spherical Oort Cloud, comets with long peri-
ods have a full range of inclinations, about half being retrograde or greater
than 180°, effectively meaning that they are moving opposite to the orbital
direction of the planets. However, that scatter of orbital inclinations is not
reflected in those of Jupiter’s family (although it is to some degree mani-
fested among comets with somewhat longer “short” periods, prime exam-
ples being the comets Halley and Tempel-Tuttle).
We now know that the comets ending up in Jupiter’s family come from a
belt of objects known as the Kuiper Belt (or the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, as
this was yet another idea that had been earlier anticipated!) located
beyond the orbit of Neptune. This “belt” was indeed first proposed in 1943
by K. Edgeworth, but the idea did not really gain wide acceptance until it
was independently proposed by G. Kuiper in 1951. The “dwarf planet” Pluto
has been recognized as a large member of this system amid much contro-
versy that will not be discussed here.
Observationally, dynamically new comets tend to display certain charac-

teristics that are important to recognize. Because they are making their
maiden voyage into the inner planetary system, they are actually becom-
ing active for the first time. While resident in the Oort Cloud, a comet is
kept at such a low temperature that it would have the appearance of an
inactive asteroid if we had a telescope large enough to observe it. During
its long sojourn at what are almost stellar distances from the Sun, cosmic
rays are thought to inflict damage on atoms within the outer layers of the
icy conglomerate, resulting in the accumulation of a thin coating of highly
unstable species that can only continue to exist at temperatures not too far
above absolute zero. In addition to this, it is likely that slight internal
warmth from radioactive decay has caused the most highly volatile sub-
stances to migrate to the surface, adding to the “frosting” layer.
For comets that have been deflected inward, however, the first warmth of
the distant Sun causes this unstable layer to, by degrees, boil away, expos-
ing the more stable “undamaged” material beneath and maybe even caus-
ing this to be partially coated with refractory particles freed from the layer
of frosting and falling back onto the nucleus surface. The upshot of this is
that dynamically new comets typically become active at distances where
dynamically older ones are still dormant. Activity in new comets as remote
as 10–15 AU from the Sun is not atypical. Moreover, because this distant
activity is being driven by substances more volatile than water-ice (which
remains as hard as rock at these distances), dynamically new comets have
a tendency to brighten quite steeply at first. This has resulted in some
embarrassing overly optimistic predictions at times, in cases where a
dynamically new comet destined for a small perihelion passage has been
discovered well in advance, while still at a large distance from the Sun.
The general trend noted in the pre-perihelic light curve of most dynami-
cally new comets is for a relatively steep brightening, albeit possibly with a
declining rate, until the comet is between approximately 1.5–2.0 AU from
the Sun, at which point a rather distinct discontinuity occurs in the light
curve, with the comet brightening at a noticeably decreased rate thereaf-
ter. This discontinuity, it will be noted, happens around the distance where
water-ice starts to sublimate and is presumably indicative of the point at
which the volatile frosting layer has been largely purged and water-ice
sublimation takes over as the principal source of the comet’s activity.
On the other hand, a comet whose orbit is more dynamically evolved, that
is to say, one that is not making its first passage of the Sun, will normally not
reach its “regular” level of activity until it reaches these distances from the
Sun and its water-ice begins to sublimate in earnest. Such a comet may also
contain a percentage of materials more volatile than water—highly volatile
“impurities,” so to speak—and for that reason might be active to a certain
degree at several AU from the Sun. But unlike a dynamically new object, its
level of activity will be subdued, and it will seem to be an intrinsically
fainter object than its behavior within 1.5 AU of the Sun proves it to be.
56 Chapter 6
Whereas there have been a number of disappointments due to dynami-

cally new comets “failing” to live up to their early predictions, there have
been other instances of dynamically “older” comets becoming surprise
performers after they “switch on” to their true activity levels closer to the
Sun. When planning observations for a newly discovered comet, it is there-
fore always beneficial to know if its orbit suggests it to be dynamically new
or dynamically older, although it is also worth remembering that the
behavior of any individual comet can also depart widely from the average.
Although the behavioral characteristics of these two classes of comet can
act as a guide to the likely performance of a newly discovered object, we
must remember that they are far from being set in stone!
All of these features make comets fascinating objects for visual observa-
tion. Nevertheless, before we look at the different types of observations
that a visual comet observer can make and the equipment needed to make
them, a nagging question must first be faced.
It is all very well—and it may be quite a pleasant pastime—to observe such

objects, but in these days of CCD cameras, remote-controlled telescopes
and observations made from outer space, must we admit that a “pleasant
pastime” is all that it is? In other words, can it still be true that a visual
observer will actually contribute anything of scientific value to the study of
comets? Why is a book on visual comet observing (or on any type of visual
observing for that matter!) even being written? Is there still a place for the
human eye, assisted by nothing more than an old-fashioned visual tele-
scope, in today’s astronomical research?
This is a question begging an answer.

PART II
THE ROLE OF VISUAL COMET OBSERVERS

IN THE AGE OF CCDS
The Value of Visual Observing in a Photo-Happy World 59
CHAPTER 7
THE VALUE OF VISUAL OBSERVING

IN A PHOTO-HAPPY WORLD
The answer to the question at the end of the previous section is, we dare to
suggest, a very definitive “Yes.” Visual observations remain important and
are very relevant in the case of comet observing. For one thing, visual
observations link today’s comet observers with the line of their predeces-
sors stretching back to the days of ancient China and Greece over
2000 years ago. Only by comparing visual descriptions can we relate the
appearance of a comet seen today with one seen in decades, centuries or
even millennia past. Only by comparing visual observations of a periodic
comet during a contemporary return can we ascertain whether any
changes in that object’s activity have taken place since astronomers of a
century ago described that same body during its earlier apparitions.
History itself has shown the importance of this point. During the mid-dec-
ades of last century, visual observation of periodic comets by and large
gave way to photographic monitoring using large telescopes, and this
change of method resulted in the erroneous conclusion that comets of
short period faded rapidly over time. Strange as it may seem, photographs
acquired through large instruments tend to show comets as smaller and
fainter objects than visual observations made with the aid of wide-field
eyepieces. This is in part due to the differing aims of the observers. Those
using wide-field visual techniques are mostly attempting to gauge the
comet’s total brightness, whereas photography became largely employed
for astrometric purposes. Of course, anyone desirous of measuring a pre-
cise position for a comet would not wish to work with a photograph show-
ing an overexposed central region. Better by far to sacrifice the extended
nebulosity in favor of a small and condensed core, the position of which
can be measured with much greater precision!

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_7
60 Chapter 7
Astrometric measurements were typically published together with an

approximate magnitude derived from the photographic image. But
because the latter was really only an image of the central region of the
comet’s coma, this magnitude value was almost inevitably too faint. In
extreme instances, visual estimates and photographic estimates d iffered
by as much as six magnitudes, the photographic ones being the fainter.
This amounts to a discrepancy of close to 270-fold in terms of brightness!
Publication of the fainter magnitudes gave rise to the idea that the bright
periodic comets of yesteryear had decayed to the point where they were of
no further interest to visual observers. This became a self-fulfilling proph-
ecy as owners of small telescopes decided that their time would be better
spent observing objects that were within range rather than chasing those
that (apparently) were not.
Only from the early 1980s as certain amateur astronomers become seri-
ously skeptical of the popular idea that comets rapidly decayed was a
concerted effort made to observe periodic comets visually, irrespective of
their “officially” predicted magnitudes. To the delight of some and the sur-
prise of others, most of the comets in question were found not to have
change significantly in brightness since the time of their discovery decades
earlier. But the ramifications of this went even further than simply demon-
strating that short-period comets were not fading rapidly. As we saw ear-
lier, one piece of the apparently supporting evidence for Vsekhsvyatskij’s
theory that comets were being ejected from the giant planets or their sat-
ellites rested on the supposed brevity of the lives of these objects. Visual
observations of these same comets helped reveal the error of this supposi-
tion. That result alone provides a good argument for continuing the visual
monitoring of comets.
A second reason for continuing visual observations is the occurrence of

rapid changes in some comets. Rapidly moving features, for example in the
form of small, fast-moving condensations within the tail, have been
reported at times. However such changes can be smeared out and missed
on extended exposures.
Beside these practical reasons there is another which, although not so

easily pinned down, is equally valid. There is something special about
being out under the night sky observing something with one’s own eyes
The Value of Visual Observing in a Photo-Happy World 61
(aided at most by a simple telescope) that cannot be experienced by

watching a computer screen. It would be a pity if amateur astronomy
evolved (devolved?) to the point where this immediate experience of the
universe was replaced by an artificial relationship with a product of
human technology. The writer recalls an incident where someone walked
into an observatory dome and remarked about the beautiful planetary
conjunction then visible in the sky. One of the astronomers (attention
fixed, no doubt, on some screen or the like) replied “What conjunction?”
Although this must not be interpreted as a criticism of CCDs and other
technological advances, it would be nothing short of tragic if amateur
astronomy became so hi-tech that all aesthetic and (yes, even spiritual)
appreciation became lost.
With these thoughts in mind therefore, let us now turn to the specific topic
of this book—visual comet observing. How are we best to observe comets
with eye and telescope alone in this hi-tech age and what are the most
scientifically useful observations that we can make? Of course, we can sim-
ply observe comets for the pure pleasure of seeing these fascinating
objects, but it is doubly rewarding if our pleasant pastime can also be
beneficial to science.
Visual Comet Hunting 63
CHAPTER 8
VISUAL COMET HUNTING
This is an area where the advent of automated searches has had a very
great effect. At the time these words are being written in early 2016, a little
over 5 years have passed since the latest visual discovery of a comet. This is
strikingly different from the situation prior to about 1995. Back then, it was
a rare year that did not bring forth several comets discovered by amateur
astronomers systematically sweeping the skies with wide-field telescopes
or large binoculars. The typical magnitude of these comets at the time of
their discovery was between 8 and 10, relatively bright on the scale of tel-
escopic objects.
Today, most comets are found during the course of automated searches
employing CCD cameras and devised for the purpose of discovering aster-
oids in potentially Earth-threatening orbits. These discoveries have greatly
enlarged our knowledge of the small members of our Solar System. An
entirely unexpected class of comet (the so-called main-belt comets or
objects orbiting within the main Asteroid Belt that nevertheless display
genuine cometary activity at certain places in their orbits) has been discov-
ered, together with superficially comet-like “active asteroids” and genuine
comets that remain very far from the Sun.
The majority of these comets and comet-like bodies are between magni-
tudes 17 and 20, or thereabouts, at the time of discovery. Many remain too
faint for visual observation at any time. Others, such as the comets that
may in past years have first been spotted by visual comet hunters, fre-
quently do not come within the range of the small instruments tradition-
ally used for comet hunting until at least a year after their discovery.
The old-fashioned comet hunter does not, we may think, stand a chance of
success nowadays!

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_8
64 Chapter 8
Nevertheless, although we cannot deny that the cards are stacked against
them, visual comet hunters need not go the way court jesters. The search
programs do not venture into twilight, leaving a zone unpatrolled at mod-
erately small elongations from the Sun, sandwiched between the truly
dark sky and the very small elongations where SOHO picks up its vast
number of comet discoveries. It is still possible for a comet to approach the
Sun at small elongations (though not so small as to appear in SOHO’s
LASCO images) and emerge rather suddenly as a fairly bright object low in
the morning or evening twilight. A comet following this sort of path may
not have been bright enough several months earlier when it crossed the
patrolled zone. This is especially true of dynamically evolved/physically
decayed (i.e., “old”) comets that have passed the Sun so many times on
their long-period orbits that most of their repository of very volatile sub-
stances has long since been evaporated away into space. Only as water-ice
begins to sublimate will these objects awaken from their slumber and
“switch on” activity. Furthermore, comets of this type will also likely have
built up a good layer of non-volatile matter on the surface of their nuclei,
and this will tend to further delay the onset of significant activity. The
upshot of this is that an object that is dormant and too faint even for the
professional search programs during its crossing of the patrolled region of
sky may suddenly surge in brightness as it draws close to the Sun, thereby
becoming visually discoverable in the sky’s twilight zone. Certain comets
have even delayed their switching on of significant activity until after their
perihelion passage.
An especially interesting family of comets that only activate as they come

fairly close to the Sun is the so-called Kreutz family of sungrazers. Literally
thousands of tiny members of this comet clan have been discovered in
SOHO/LASCO data, but none of these has turned out to be of interest to the
visual observer. On the other hand, recent years have seen an increasing
trend in the annual numbers of the SOHO sungrazers, and the Festive
Season of 2011 was gloriously celebrated (at least for Southern Hemisphere
observers) by the spectacular sungrazing Comet Lovejoy.
Historically, Kreutz comets have tended to come in “clusters” containing

two or three comets spread out over several years, each “cluster” being
separated from the next by a number of decades. The recent increase in the
number of mini-sungrazers found in LASCO data, plus the arrival of Comet
Lovejoy, have suggested to some astronomers that a new “cluster” might
be on its way. At least one astronomer has gone on record with a “probable
prediction” that another sungrazer at least equal to Comet Lovejoy should
appear before 2020. Whether this will happen or not is far from being cer-
tain, but because these comets tend to delay switching on activity until
they are relatively close to perihelion, if another bright one does come
along, there is a fair chance at least that it will be discovered visually—if
anyone is actually looking!
Conveniently, because the Kreutz comets follow very similar orbits, we can
know where any new members of the family will be located should more of
their number grace our skies. In theory, if the tracks they follow across the
constellations are constantly monitored, any new visitor will be discovered
in advance of perihelion if it displays sufficient activity early enough to
become visible in a dark sky. In case this happens in the not-too-distant
future, a permanent ephemeris is given, along with some background
information on these fascinating objects, in Chapter 16 of this book.
Comets making their maiden voyage into the inner Solar System from their
home in the distant comet reservoir of the Oort Cloud are, however, a dif-
ferent matter. As we saw earlier, these typically become active at distances
of up to 15 AU from the Sun, as an accumulation of highly volatile species
on the surfaces of their nuclei respond to the slightest hint of solar warmth.
They characteristically display clear cometary appearances in search of
patrol images, and it is expected that few will slip through the patrol net
and be discovered visually as they attain brighter magnitudes.
Another class of comet that may still be visually discoverable consists of

those that are normally very faint or inactive but for some reason have sud-
denly flared in brightness. These are not the same as the rapidly brighten-
ing variety discussed above and are often objects of very short period that
are either suffering a brief and sporadic outburst or have been formerly
dormant pseudo-asteroids that have been “rejuvenated,” presumably by
the removal of part of the insulating layer that had accumulated on their
surfaces and stifled their activity.
The most recent visual discovery, as at the time of writing in early 2016,
was one such object. This was the short-period comet Ikeya-Murakami,
discovered on the morning of November 3, 2010, independently by two
experienced visual comet hunters following a sudden and extreme rise in
66 Chapter 8
brightness. Outbursting comets may appear anywhere in the sky, but a

visual comet hunter needs to be very quick in reporting the discovery of
one that may appear in the patrolled zone if he or she wants to beat the
professional searchers!
Even though there remains a slight chance that a comet in outburst might
appear suddenly at large elongation from the Sun, the visual comet hunter
has more chance of catching the quarry by concentrating on the western
region of sky after sunset and the eastern region before dawn, extending
the sweeps northward or southward, depending on the hemisphere, to the
region under the pole. The greatest chance of success is within the region
of sky extending out to about 60° elongation. Use a telescope on an altazi-
muth mount for ease of sweeping, an eyepiece giving a field of at least 1.5°
and a lens or mirror of short focal length but possessing a sufficiently large
aperture to allow nebulous objects of tenth magnitude to be relatively
conspicuous in a dark sky.
Magnifications of between 30 and 50 times are traditionally recom-

mended, although if large-aperture Dobsonian reflectors are used, higher
magnifications will be preferable. As far as apertures are concerned, suc-
cessful comet hunters have used just about everything from 2-in. (50-mm)
binoculars to reflectors as large as 20 in. (50 cm) or thereabouts. Probably,
apertures of 6 in. (15 cm) are about the minimum size these days, although
large binoculars and binocular telescopes of 4 in. (10 cm) or larger, with
magnifications of 20 or 25 times, have traditionally performed well and
have the advantage of requiring both eyes. This more “natural” way of
observing proves more restful when long periods of sweeping are
undertaken.
In 2010, Don Machholz visually discovered an intrinsically faint comet

while sweeping with an 18-in. (46-cm) reflector. This object was only briefly
observed, and its orbit was such that it remained at relatively small elonga-
tion for an extended period as it approached perihelion. Earlier, when it
passed through the patrolled zone of the automated search programs, it
would have been too faint for even these to detect. Had Machholz not
found this object, it is unlikely that it would have been discovered.
The same may be said for the second comet discovered by Terry Lovejoy in
2007. Although this one was not found visually, it was bright enough at the
time to have been swept up by someone using a telescope similar to that

used by Machholz 3 years later. Both these incidents imply that, even
today, a few comets reaching brightness levels just above the limit of visual
discoverability may still escape detection by remaining at small solar elon-
gations. This is something to be remembered by observers who own, or
have regular access to, telescopes having apertures of 16–20 in. or
thereabouts.
How the sky is swept is the preference of the individual. The “traditional”
method has been to make overlapping horizontal sweeps. Many comet
hunters begin evening sweeps at minimum elongation and move upward,
while beginning morning sweeps at maximum elongation and sweeping
downward toward the horizon as the latter gradually brightens toward the
dawn. Other comet hunters, however, prefer to always proceed in the same
direction, whether in the evening or in the morning sky. On the other hand,
several successful comet hunters prefer to make vertical sweeps of the
morning or evening sky. It is really a case of what best suits the individual
observer and makes the most comfortable use of the instrument employed.
Whatever method is employed, the best time for sweeping is during the
first dark evenings following full Moon and the mornings leading up to
new, when the Moon is a waning crescent in the pre-dawn sky. A comet
approaching the Sun and rapidly brightening as it becomes active may
have significantly increased in brightness during the moonlight period and
appear as a relatively easy telescopic object after the Moon vacates the sky.
Should you happen to find a nebulous object that is definitely not a star,
carefully determine its position as accurately as circumstances will allow (if
it is low in the embers of twilight, a rough determination of its position
might be all that is possible) and doubly check to make sure that no nebula
or unresolved star cluster is located at that position. If the object is small
and not very distinct, it may be advisable to re-examine it with a more
powerful eyepiece, as sometimes two or three faint stars in close proximity
to one another can give the illusion of a small fuzzy spot when seen at low
magnification. Also, of course, make sure that there is no known comet at
that location. This may sound too obvious to mention as, presumably, any-
one engaged in comet hunting will be aware of any such objects already in
view and will probably be keeping them under observation. However, it is
also advisable to check whether there are any faint comets (those too dim
68 Chapter 8
to attract the attention of a visual observer) at the position of the sus-

pected object. It may be that you have caught a faint comet undergoing a
large flare in brightness. That would be a discovery in its own right and,
although not as exciting for the discoverer as finding a brand-new comet,
may turn out to be of even greater scientific value!
If you possess one of the Swan band filters marketed by Lumicom, try
observing your suspect through this by way of a further test. Comets that
are visible principally because of fluorescing gases (with a few rare excep-
tions) radiate strongly in the light of diatomic carbon—the so-called “Swan
bands”—and when viewed through these special filters appear brighter
than when viewed through the eyepiece alone. The degree of enhance-
ment depends upon the relative intensity of the gas and dust comas.
Comets with very weak dust comas (i.e., those visible almost exclusively
because of their gaseous emissions) will be strongly enhanced, whereas
those having a moderate dust content will be less affected. Finally, comets
that are rich in dust will show no enhancement and may even appear dim-
mer when observed through the filter. With this in mind, if your suspected
comet is strongly or moderately enhanced when you use the filter, you can
be sure that you do indeed have the real thing. However, if the filter makes
no discernible difference to the object’s visibility, or if it makes it seem dim-
mer, you are none the wiser as to the object’s nature. You may still have a
found a comet, but one with a high dust content.
In the past, most people giving advice on comet hunting added that the
best test was to keep the suspect under view at the highest magnification
possible, while checking its position relative to field stars in order to con-
firm motion. That continues to be good advice when circumstances allow,
but as the field open to visual comet hunters is now principally confined to
the low evening or morning skies, the length of time required to check
movement will probably be quite restricted, as the suspect either sinks into
the murk of the western evening horizon or fades from sight as dawn light
floods the eastern morning sky!
Once you are satisfied that the suspect you have in view really is a new
comet, waste no more time. Email the Center for Astronomical Telegrams at
cbatiau@eps.harvard.edu or cbat@iau.org giving the time of the observa-
tion, the object’s position and (at least approximate) magnitude, details of
the instrument used and, if you have managed to determine any movement,
details of the degree and direction of this motion. It is also helpful to contact
an astronomical friend who might be able to confirm the discovery. Sweep
the region again the following night if at all possible (or arrange for some-
one else to try if you are not able to do this), especially in the absence of any
determination of motion, to acquire a second position before the comet
covers too much distance from the discovery position. In fact, as soon as
your email to the center has been sent, it would be most beneficial if you
could contact a colleague living in a time zone where the comet will still be
visible. A confirming observation from another location, together with an
updated position indicating the movement of the comet, would be appreci-
ated by the center and would go a long way toward preventing the comet
from becoming lost, should it be swiftly sinking into twilight.
When giving the time of your possible discovery, remember to use

Universal Time (UT) and to give the date and time in decimals of a (UT) day.
Zero hours Universal Time is midnight at Greenwich, and the required time
of day is given on a 24-h clock from that moment, irrespective of the local
time in your region. For the writer in eastern Australia, zero hours UT is
10:00 a.m. local time or 11:00 a.m. Summer Time. Therefore an observation
made at, say, 4:00 a.m. local time on the morning of August 4 is recorded as
having been made at 1800 h on August 3. In terms of decimals of a day, this
is written as August 3.75. If an observation is made at 4:40 a.m. local time
(that is to say, 1840 UT), the 40 min must also be converted to a decimal of
the hour. Forty minutes is 40/60ths or 2/3rds (=0.67) of an hour, so an
observation made at 1840 is made at 18.67 h or 0.78 of a day. This observa-
tion would therefore be recorded as having been made on August 3.78.
All comet observations, not just discovery announcements, should be
reported according to this format.
Observing Known Comets 71
CHAPTER 9
OBSERVING KNOWN COMETS
Although comet hunting for new comets is still capable of bringing excit-
ing results, it is certainly not the only work open to the visual comet
observer. Each year brings its stock of returning periodic and newly discov-
ered non-periodic comets, and most of the time there will be some “known”
comet within the visual range of small or moderately sized telescopes. To
some, the routine observation of a dim comet might appear dull fare, but
it is precisely such routine monitoring that yields information about how
these objects behave as they approach and recede from the Sun and which
provides a window through which their physical nature may be glimpsed.
It is also through regular estimates of a comet’s brightness and general
appearance that any unexpected departure from its regular behavior (a
sudden brightening or fading, for example) becomes apparent and may
give clues as to the future development of the comet in question.
Most local and national amateur astronomical societies have comet sec-
tions that will be interested in your observations. Moreover, several groups
are now active on the Web, and in recent years a database has been estab-
lished at http://www.cobs.si/ to collect comet observations worldwide and
make them available to researchers. In view of resources such as this, the
continuing importance of visual observations cannot be overestimated.
hat Instruments Are Most Suitable for Visual Comet

W
Observing?
This is almost like asking, “What is the length of a piece of string?”! Comets
range over the whole scale of brightness and can take on just about any
appearance. The brightest have outshone every other astronomical object

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_9
72 Chapter 9
except the Sun, while the faintest are barely recorded with the world’s
largest telescopes.
Especially when making magnitude estimates (see following) a good rule

is to use the smallest instrument that shows the comet clearly. Of course,
this all depends on the comet’s brightness, but if it is fairly easily seen with
the naked eye, then use the naked eye. If it is clear in opera glasses, then
use those. But if it requires a 20-in. reflector to see it properly, then use this
instrument if you have access to the same.
When assessing the potential visibility of a comet to determine whether or

not it is likely to be within range of your telescope, it is well to remember
that the limiting magnitudes for comets (i.e., the faintest magnitude at
which a comet will be visible in any given telescope) is typically brighter
than the limiting stellar magnitude of the same instrument. This is because
comets are diffuse objects in which the light is “spread out,” so to speak,
rather than being concentrated in a point-like source. An approximate but
fairly reliable way of calculating the limiting stellar magnitude of a tele-
scope is to use the formula
LM = 4 + 5 log A

where LM is the limiting stellar magnitude and A is the aperture in mm.

This, of course, assumes a clear and dark sky (having a limiting naked-eye
magnitude of 6.5 at the zenith) and that the region of sky being observed
is well above the horizon (at least 45° elevation). It also assumes that the
observer possesses good eyesight. Other factors will also come into play,
such as lens quality, magnification and even whether the observer is a
novice, an expert or somewhere in between. More advanced formulae
attempt to quantify factors such as these, but the above simple equation
should prove to be satisfactory as a first approximation.
For comets, however, a different formula has been found to yield more
realistic results. The Comet Section of the British Astronomical Association,
for instance, found that the limiting cometary magnitude of a telescope or
pair of binoculars is best represented by

( )
M = 8.0 + 2.43 log A 2
where A is the telescope aperture in inches and M is the faintest cometary

magnitude visible in a telescope of aperture A. Please note that in this
formula the aperture is given in inches, not in mm as in the previous one.
By applying these two formulae to telescopes of differing apertures, it will

be seen that the limiting cometary brightness turns out to be about three
magnitudes brighter than the limit for stars in the same instrument. This
gap is perhaps a little large, principally because the first equation appar-
ently assumes a high magnification (even though the simple formula does
not explicitly factor this in) whereas comet observations, on which the
second formula is based, are typically conducted at low or medium magni-
fications. The magnification issue will be raised shortly, but it only needs to
be noted that very faint stars can be detected at high magnifications that
are missed at those normally employed for comet observing.
The same caveats introduced for practically seeing down to theoretical

limiting stellar magnitudes are relevant for comets as well. That is to say,
the above formula assumes a clear dark sky, a considerable elevation for
the comet, observer experience in observing low-levels of luminosity,
good optics and so forth.
For comets, however, there are some additional factors that should be
noted. The formula given here holds pretty well for what we might call
“average” comets (to the extent that there are such things!) observed
under low magnifications, but it will break down in cases where the
appearance of the comet differs radically from the relatively small, moder-
ately condensed nebulosity that is the typical comet.
At one end of the scale, faint and low-activity comets passing close to Earth
have most of their light concentrated in the point-like source of the solid
nucleus or in a small peri-nuclear condensation that is only slightly larger.
These appear essentially asteroidal, are best observed at high magnifica-
tion and, as such, are likely to be observable essentially to the stellar limit-
ing magnitude of a telescope. The near-asteroidal 209P/LINEAR, at the time
of its close pass by Earth in 2014, is a case in point. An even more extreme
example was the low-activity comet P/2016 BA14 (PANSTARRS), which
passed very close to Earth near the time of the March equinox in 2016.
Most visual observers saw this as a completely asteroidal object. Only on
stacked CCD images was the faint tail discernible!
74 Chapter 9
The other end of the scale is well demonstrated by the comet Sugano-
Saigusa-Fujikawa when it passed very close to our planet in 1983. This was
an exceptionally diffuse comet. Although the comet’s total brightness was
then about 5.5, it was distributed essentially evenly over an area of sky
having about twice the diameter of the full Moon. It appeared, as described
by noted comet observer C. S. Morris, like “a pale ghost” with a level of
intensity barely above that of the background sky. Several observers
blessed with very dark skies managed to see it with their unaided eyes as
a very dim misty patch, and Morris, together with a number of other expe-
rienced comet observers, watched it through binoculars. Nevertheless,
when Morris pointed his 10-in. telescope toward the comet’s position, he
saw nothing! The comet was completely invisible in this larger instrument,
without even a hint of the background sky appearing brighter at its loca-
tion. Of course, this is an extreme example, but it nevertheless demonstrates
well the difficulties involved in observing very diffuse and uncondensed
comets and how the visibility of these is apt to pay little heed to the theo-
retical cometary limiting magnitude of a telescope. This can be especially
relevant in the case of comets that rapidly diffuse as they move away from
perihelion passage. Comets of this type typically disappear from visual
observability even though their total integrated magnitude should still
place them within the range of small instruments.
Of at least equal importance with the instrument used for comet observing is
the magnification employed. As a general rule, low magnification is to be
favored, other things being equal. A good rule of thumb is the use of a mag-
nification about twice the value of the telescope aperture as given in cm. For
instance, a 10-in. telescope (25 cm) should have a magnification of around 50.
This rule of thumb should, however, be interpreted liberally. For example, a
16-mm Nagler eyepiece does a very good job at magnification 71× on a 10-in.
f/4.5 reflector. Moreover, for comets not far above the limit of the telescope
employed, but still relatively well condensed, the larger image and darker
field background of an eyepiece of higher magnification is often found supe-
rior. With a 10-in. reflector, magnifications of 114× may prove to be best for
observing most of the fainter and smaller comets. Once or twice you might
have to resort to a magnification of 190×, but in most instances magnifica-
tions of this order coupled with a fairly modest aperture of 10 in. simply
results in the comet image being diffused away into the background sky.
Binoculars of all apertures come in very handy for observing the brighter
comets. The use of both eyes is restful, and the typically wide fields of these
instruments show comets to advantage. Once again, however, it is not

always advisable to use the lowest magnifications, even though these give
the widest fields. Low magnifications give fields with brighter back-
grounds, and it is possible for a very diffuse comet whose surface bright-
ness barely exceeds that of the background sky to melt away into
invisibility if the field appears too bright. A good indication of the back-
ground field brightness that we can expect is to divide the aperture of the
binocular (given in mm) by the magnification and then square the result.
The greater the resulting number, the lighter the field. Binoculars for which
this number is around 50 or higher are sometimes marketed as “night
glasses” (though not, however, to be confused with the genuine infrared
nocturnal binoculars). This expression means that these instruments can
be used for terrestrial night viewing thanks to the brightness of the field of
view. However, for astronomical “night viewing” a bright field is not the
best look, not at least if we are interested in observing faint and diffuse
comets. A figure of about 30 or less is far preferable for this purpose.
As an example, 7 × 50 binoculars are sometimes promoted as “night

glasses,” “cats eyes” and the like. The reason is clear. Divide 50 by 7 and the
answer comes out at 7.1. Square this and we get 50.4. On the other hand,
if this same exercise is performed for 10 × 50 binoculars, we have 50/10 = 5,
the square of which is just 25. Even though the aperture of both instru-
ments is the same, the field of the latter will be darker. It will also be
smaller, but sacrificing a smaller for a darker field will be worthwhile when
low-intensity extended objects are being observed. Of course, a bright
and intense object with a long tail might be better viewed using the wider
field of a pair of 7 × 50s, so once again no hard and fast rules can be set.
Experience alone will tell the observer which instrument to use on any
particular occasion, and the choice will probably differ from one observer
to the next.
nowing Which Comets Are Visible and How to Find

K
Them
Of course, having the right equipment is only half the story. Anyone desir-
ous of observing comets must also know what comets are within range of
his or her telescope or binocular and how to locate them in the sky!
76 Chapter 9
Although most astronomical societies will have a comet section from

which such information could be gleaned, the best source for information
on comets (as well as on asteroids) are the Minor Planet Circulars, or MPC,
alternatively known as “Minor Planets and Comets.” These may be accessed
at the MPC website at www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/mpc.html and are
continuously being updated with the latest orbital refinements.
Another source of current comet information is the International Comet

Quarterly webpage at http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/icq.html.
Unfortunately, this is no longer maintained as diligently as in the past, and
it often takes some time before newly discovered objects are posted,
although it continues to be a good source of information concerning
returning periodic comets as well as relatively recent discoveries.
The International Astronomical Union also issues IAU Telegrams and Circulars
via email announcing new discoveries and developments concerning comets,
asteroids, nova and suchlike. Subscription to this service is recommended for
the serious comet observer. The Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
may be reached at http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu.
A word of caution, however, concerning the positions given in the pub-

lished ephemerides. Unless otherwise stated, the predicted positions of a
comet or asteroid are given for zero hours UT. If the comet is bright and
slow moving, or if you are observing at a time close to midnight at
Greenwich, this will not present a problem, but if your time of observing is
hours away from zero hours UT, especially if the comet that you are seeking
is fast-moving, the position given in the published ephemeris will be a
region of empty sky. The comet will have moved on! If the comet being
sought is close to the magnitude limit of your telescope and if the distance
that it traversed since zero hours is relatively large, locating it might be
difficult. Extrapolating from the published ephemeris positions might
work for a relatively bright comet, but for dim objects it is far more reliable
to recalculate the object’s position from the latest published elements for
the precise time that you plan your observation. Fortunately, good pro-
grams allowing such calculations to be made easily are available on the
Web. One by Wm. Schwittek that may be downloaded free of charge from
http://www.inourfamily.com/sites/cmtwin/. This program not only com-
putes the position of a comet in right ascension and declination, but also
gives the object’s altitude above the local horizon, in addition to its azimuth,
for any specified location and time, making it an easy task to determine at
what time of the night the comet of interest will reach an altitude suitable
for observing from your location.
Once its position is known, the comet may be found either by using a GoTo
telescope or digital setting circles (or, for that matter, old fashioned non-
digital setting circles if an equatorial mount is being used), or via the
method known as “star hopping.” This latter simply involves locating the
naked-eye star nearest to the comet, turning your telescope to that star
and then using this as your starting point to search for the comet in rela-
tion to the fainter stars within the telescopic field.
Some form of star atlas showing faint stars (a limiting magnitude of at least
magnitude 10, preferably closer to 14 or 15) is necessary for this to work
properly. It is also preferable for the atlas to be photographic. The reason
for this is that star hopping works by identifying patterns of stars in the
eyepiece field—asterisms or “mini constellations,” in a manner of speaking.
For instance, suppose that the comet being sought is 5° from the naked-
eye star and situated between an isosceles triangle of stars of magnitude
11 and a close double star of magnitude 12. Let’s say that this double is
10 min of arc from the apex of the triangle and that the comet is predicted
to be located on a line between the apex and the double, being 4 min of arc
from the latter. With the aid of an atlas showing stars down to (say) magni-
tude 14, this should be quite an easy search. The chart will not be crowded
with very faint stars but should reveal the pattern in the vicinity of the
comet quite clearly, as well as showing other star patterns between this
and the naked-eye star that will help in the star-hopping process.
Nevertheless, if some of the stars (for instance, the apex of the triangle) are
missing on a non-photographic star chart, the pattern will be disrupted, and,
if the comet is very faint, finding it will be made so much harder. An excellent
photographic atlas is the Atlas Stellarum by Hans Vehrenberg. This is still avail-
able—but at a price! Alternatively, good on-line resources are available, for
example “The Sky Live” at http://theskylive.com. This site provides real-time
positions of comets as well as displaying suitable comparison stars.
Using a photographic star atlas or its equivalent—either hard copy or

online—will also help even if setting circles or GoTo telescopes are
employed in cases where the comet is close to the magnitude limit of the
78 Chapter 9
telescope. Knowing the exact position relative to faint field stars is a great
assistance in finding something so faint that concentration on its position
is necessary for it to be detected at all. For star hopping, an eyepiece of low
power and wide field should be used; however when a comet is small and
very faint, it will probably be necessary to switch to an eyepiece of higher
magnification with which to examine its position, as the brighter field
background of a low-magnification eyepiece will not infrequently lose the
comet through lack of contrast.
Here, however, is a timely warning. As we shall again have reason to men-

tion when the observation of comet tails is discussed, too much concentra-
tion upon the predicted position of an object can result in the object being
“seen” whether it truly is visible or not! Many comet observers can red-
facedly recall instances of this type. The writer recalls once having “located’
a newly discovered comet, estimated its brightness and noted its extremely
diffuse and uncondensed appearance, only to find out later that the pre-
liminary orbital elements used to calculate this position turned out to be
less than accurate, and the real position of the comet at the time of this
“observation” was actually some distance from where I was looking!
Fortunately, my “observation” had not been reported, so public embarrass-
ment at least was avoided!
So with this word of caution, our brief discussion of the basics of visual
comet observing comes to a close. Let us now take a look at the various
types of observations of known comets open to the visual astronomer.
The Coma: How to Estimate Its Brightness and Record Its Features 79
CHAPTER 10
THE COMA: HOW TO ESTIMATE ITS BRIGHTNESS

AND RECORD ITS FEATURES
Estimating the Brightness of a Comet
Making brightness estimates of comets is the most useful project for the
visual comet observer. Careful monitoring of the intrinsic brightness of
short-period comets is essential in determining changes that may occur
over time, and contemporary visual observation is the only safe way of
comparing the brightness of a periodic comet as it appears today with the
observations of yesteryear. Moreover, brightness estimates of long-period
comets tell us how these objects evolve as they approach the Sun and
recede again from it and enable comparison to be made between the pho-
tometric development of comets having different lengths of period. Again,
a careful watch on comet brightness by visual observers may find that a
certain comet’s brightness is fluctuating on a short time scale, and it might
be possible to determine whether such short-period fluctuations are cor-
related with solar activity or even with the rotation of the comet’s nucleus.
The brightness of a comet or of any other astronomical object is given in

terms of the magnitude scale. On this scale, each magnitude value is 2.512
times as bright as the one just below it. For example, a star of first magni-
tude is 2.512 times brighter than one of second magnitude, an object of
magnitude −3 is 2.512 times brighter than one of −2 and so forth. A differ-
ence of five magnitudes represents a difference in brightness of about
100-fold, a star of the fifth magnitude being about 100 times fainter than
one of magnitude zero.
Charts of comparison stars are provided by variable star organizations

such as the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO). Many
of the brighter comparison stars (down to about magnitude 9, sometimes
10) are given in the AAVSO Star Atlas and fainter ones are included in the
individual charts made for specific variable stars.

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_10
80 Chapter 10
Nevertheless, not all lists and/or charts of comparison stars are equally
reliable. It is therefore advisable for the prospective comet observer to go
to the list of recommended and non-recommended sources of comparison
stars provided by the International Comet Quarterly at http://www.icq.eps.
harvard.edu/ICQRec.html prior to making brightness estimates of comets.
Individual astronomical associations will probably have similar favorites
and non-favorites as well, and these should also prove helpful to anyone
seriously engaged in comet observation.
Comparison stars may also be found online. As already mentioned, tracks

of visible comets, complete with comparison magnitudes for stars close to
these tracks, may be found on http://theskylive.com/comets.
Two things should be remembered with respect to comparison stars. If at

all possible (and when comets are low on the horizon, this is not always
possible!) use stars at about the same altitude as the comet in order to
minimize the effects of atmospheric extinction. As light from an astronomi-
cal source passes through Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is absorbed and
does not reach the eye of the beholder. The result is that all astronomical
objects as observed from the ground appear fainter than they would be if
observed from outer space. Needless to say, the closer to the horizon the
observed object is located, the greater will be the depth of atmosphere
traversed by its light, the more of this light will have been absorbed and
the fainter the object will appear. Light of shorter wavelengths is absorbed
more readily than that of longer wavelengths, so the stars and other astro-
nomical objects also appear redder from Earth than from outer space, and
those seen closer to the horizon are reddened more than those closer to
the zenith. For instance, from above the atmosphere, the Sun has more of
a bluish-white hue than the yellow coloration with which we are familiar
from the ground. This reddening is not, however, of special concern for our
present purpose.
As an aside to this topic, astrophysicist J. A. Hynek once told a colleague of

the author about a meeting he had with Neil Armstrong. The two met and
shared a meal together, and during the course of conversation, Hynek
asked Armstrong about the visibility of stars from the surface of the Moon.
Hynek mentioned that he had always stressed to his students that, because
of the absence of lunar atmosphere, the stars as seen from there would
appear steady, without the twinkling appearance that we associate with
them. Armstrong replied that on one occasion he lifted the strongly tinted
visor from the face plate of his helmet in order to get a clear view of the sky
and found that, not only were the stars steady but of such brilliance that he
“almost thought [he] would be blinded.” If only comet observers could
experience a sky like that!
This atmospheric absorption of light experienced on Earth, though clearly

not on the Moon, is known as atmospheric extinction. In visual wavelengths,
it amounts to a diminution of approximately 0.2 magnitudes per air mass,
where “air mass” (denoted by “X”) is the amount of atmosphere that one is
looking through when looking toward the zenith. The value of X (the degree
of air mass) is given as a rough approximation by the formula
X = 1 / cosZ
where Z is the angular distance from the zenith given in degrees.
Using this formula, it can be seen that the value of X at 80° from the zenith
(i.e., at 10° elevation) amounts to 5.8. Given that one air mass dims a star by
0.2 magnitudes, it follows that a star just 10° above the horizon will be
dimmed by as much as 0.2 × 5.8 = 1.16 magnitudes. This formula breaks down
at very small elevations, as the cosines of numbers close to 90° approach zero.
For an object on the horizon, such that Z = 90, the formula implies an infinite
air mass and infinite extinction (as cos90 = 0, so 1/cos90 =
infinity).
Nevertheless, observations made of objects at very small elevations encoun-
ter a host of problems anyway and for most purposes this simple formula will
be adequate.
Correction for atmospheric extinction should be used where comparison

stars are either at greater or smaller elevations than that of the comet. For
example, suppose a naked-eye comet having an elevation of 20° appears
equal in brightness to a star having an elevation of 30°. Let us say that the
true brightness of the star—the magnitude that it is given on a chart of
comparison stars—is magnitude 3.5. A direct comparison would also yield
this as the magnitude of the comet, but because both objects are relatively
low in the sky and observed through a considerable depth of atmosphere,
plus the fact that this depth of atmosphere is different for each object, that
direct comparison would give the wrong result.
82 Chapter 10
At an elevation of 30°, the star’s distance from the zenith (Z) is 60°, and,
using the above formula, the air mass through which it is being observed
(call this Xs) is 2. Its apparent magnitude at that elevation, therefore, is 3.5
+ (0.2 × 2) = 3.5 + 0.4 = 3.9.
This means that the apparent magnitude of the comet is actually 3.9, not
3.5. However, it is also 10° lower in the sky than the comparison star. Its
distance from the zenith, therefore, is 70°, and the air mass through which
it is being observed (Xc) is 2.9. The greater degree of absorption implied by
the greater air mass means that it must actually be brighter than it appears
by the amount 0.2 × 2.9, or 0.58 magnitudes. Its actual magnitude, there-
fore, is 3.9 − 0.58 = 3.32 (say, 3.3).
If, in this example, the star was the lower of the two objects, its apparent
brightness due to the effects of extinction would be 3.5 + 0.58 = 4.08, say
4.1. The comet, now supposed to be at 30° elevation and matching the
star’s apparent brightness, would be estimated at (2 × 0.2 = 0.4) times
brighter, i.e., 4.1 − 0.4 = 3.7 magnitude.
When elevations greater than about 35° are involved, for observers at sea
level (25° for observers in mountainous regions), the differences made by
atmospheric extinction are less than other uncertainties inherent in the
methods of magnitude estimation themselves and can safely be ignored.
At the other extreme, when making brightness estimates of a comet at less

than 10° elevation, every effort should be made to use comparison stars at
the same elevation, or within 2 or 3° of this, in order to minimize the errors
that can arise when greater discrepancy in elevations are involved.
The value of 0.2 magnitudes diminution per air mass being used here is a
pretty good approximation for observers at about 3000 ft above sea level or
for sea level observers during dry weather. But there are seasonal and even
daily variations in the actual values. If a comet is being observed at low eleva-
tion under conditions that the observer feels departs from these circum-
stances, use the tables in Appendix A in this book for predicted extinction
values under seasonal conditions at a variety of altitudes. The corrections
given there can be applied where the observer deems necessary.
It is also advisable to avoid, if this is at all possible, stars that have an

obviously red color. Not only are these not normally a good color match for
comets, which are dominated by gases radiating more strongly toward the
blue end of the spectrum, but there is also a curious phenomenon known
as the Purkinje effect that causes red stars to appear to become both
brighter and redder if watched for any length of time. The human eye’s
physiology is such that perceptual sensitivity shifts toward the red at low
levels of illumination, causing red stars to appear brighter than blue ones
of the same magnitude and for the discrepancy to increase literally before
one’s eyes. These stars are best left alone unless there are absolutely no
alternatives.
Not surprisingly, the magnitude scale was derived principally for stars that,
for all practical purposes, appear as mere points of light. Comets, however,
are not luminous points. Once more repeating what was earlier stated,
these are extended objects, and, moreover, they are diffuse extended
objects of more or less low surface brightness. Something that appears as
a concentrated point of light will, of course, have a greater “brilliance” than
something that radiates the same amount of light but has it spread out
over an extended area.
To make matters even more complicated, most comets do not even have
this light uniformly spread over their surface area. Except for very weakly
active ones, most comets display a more or less pronounced intensification
of their light toward the center of the coma, and this can (and has!) been a
source of confusion for observers attempting to estimate their total bright-
ness. There is good evidence that some well-known observers of past years
published magnitude estimates that matched the brightness of the central
coma rather than that of the entire comet.
Before we compare the relative magnitude of a star and a comet therefore,

the two objects will need to be made as similar in appearance as possible. This
will, at least in part, require the light of the star to be distributed over an
apparent area equal to that of the comet. In this way, the surface brightness
of the star image is brought down to that of the comet and the total bright-
ness of the two can more efficiently be estimated. But how exactly is this
accomplished? Several methods, which we look at here, are recognized.
84 Chapter 10
The Sidgewick, or In-Out Method
This method involves placing stars of known magnitude out of focus until
their images match the diameter of the coma of the comet as observed
when in focus. The estimate is made by comparing the in-focus comet
image with the out-of-focus star images. Preferably, the stars employed
should include some that are a little fainter and others a little brighter than
the comet. The estimate is made by judging where on the scale between
the fainter and the brighter star the comet should be located. For instance,
if the brightness of the comet seems to be a quarter of the way between
the value of a star of magnitude 7.3 and one of 8.9, the comet is estimated
as 7.3 + (8.9 − 7.3)/4 = 7.3 + 0.4 = 7.7 magnitude.
This method is very efficient for determining the brightness of relatively

faint comets, in the sense of those that appear quite dim in the instrument
being used. Where a comet appears bright in the eyepiece, and the com-
parison stars are also necessarily bright, the difference in visual appear-
ance between the bright, scintillating, out-of-focus stellar image and the
steady, diffuse comet makes comparison more difficult than when both
images are relatively dim. For this reason, it is advisable to use the smallest
available instrument and the lowest practical magnification when making
the estimate. This, actually, is a valid hint irrespective of the method being
used, as it is always easier for the eye to judge small differences in the
brightness of objects that appear relatively dim in the instrument being
used than it is to compare images well above the visibility threshold.
The In-Out Method is also best used for comets that do not show a strongly
condensed core or central condensation, as those having this feature look
significantly different from the defocused images of stars. If the condensa-
tion is too pronounced to give the comet the appearance of a defocused
star, a slightly different method of estimation is required (see next).
The Morris, or Modified Out Method
This method, first proposed by the well-known comet observer C. S. Morris,
involves placing the comet image sufficiently out of focus to blend the cen-
tral condensation as evenly as possible into the wider coma. This (slightly)
out-of-focus comet image is then compared with out-of-focus images of

comparison stars, and then defocused to match the diameter of the comet’s
image. Comparison then proceeds as for the Sidgewick Method.
As will be readily apparent, the star images will be placed much further out
of focus than that of the comet. Where the coma is relatively large and only
a little too centrally condensed for direct comparison with out-of-focus
stars, this method approaches the former one. However, in instances where
a small and well-condensed comet is being observed, this method grades
into the following.
The Bobrovnikov, or Out-Out Method
This technique involves placing both the comet image and those of com-
parison stars equally out of focus until they appear approximately similar
in size and general appearance. The comet’s magnitude is then estimated
in the same manner as for the above methods.
Although not really a different method, where bright and strongly con-
densed comets are concerned, the use of an “extreme” version of this
method is the way to go. Here the images of both comet and comparison
stars are placed not just out of focus but far out of focus. So far, in fact, that
they almost (though not quite!) become invisible. The human eye is better
at comparing and discerning small brightness differences between objects
that are relatively close to the limit of visibility than it is in discerning small
differences between bright images. By diffusing the light of the images
through placing them far out of focus, intrinsically bright objects are made
to appear “faint,” and slight differences in their intensity (and therefore in
their total brightness) can more easily be detected. This form of the
Out-Out Method approaches yet another technique (see next).
The Beyer, or Extra-Focal Extinction Method
This method involves defocusing both the comet’s image and the images
of the comparison stars to such an extreme degree that all images are lost
to sight. In contrast to the above three techniques, this method does not
86 Chapter 10
rely on visually comparing the relative brightness of images but on noting

which ones are first to fall below the threshold of vision.
This method is not recommended by most comet observers. It is interest-

ing to note that the inventor of this method, Max Beyer, tended to derive
steeper light curves than most other observers, and it may be that this was
an artifact of the method of brightness estimation that he employed. When
first visually discernible relatively far from the Sun, comets are typically
very diffuse and, with a surface intensity already quite low, tend to disap-
pear more readily when being placed out of focus than more condensed
objects of similar total brightness. If the brightness of a comet is underes-
timated early in its apparition, the plot of magnitude estimates would yield
an unrealistically steep rate of brightening.
Experiments conducted by visual observers during the closing couple of

decades of last century found that, as a general rule, the Sidgewick Method
gave the brightest estimates, the Morris marginally fainter, while the
Bobrovnikoff normally gave the faintest estimates of the three principal
techniques. The Beyer Method yielded the faintest results of all, although
the actual difference between all four amounted to only a very few tenths
of a magnitude.
The reason for these differences is not difficult to see. Of all the techniques,
only the Sidgewick leaves the comet image unaltered. The others all involve
defocusing to a greater or lesser degree, and because the profile of a comet is
not one of even illumination (all but the most diffuse are brighter toward the
center and fainter at the edges), the fainter outer limits of the coma are inevi-
tably lost when the image is placed even slightly out of focus.
The In-Focus Method
This method has been included for completeness, although it is seldom

used in actual comet observing. Essentially, it is the same method used by
variable star observers to determine the brightness of a variable, i.e., the
comparison of an in-focus image of the object measured with in-focus
images of the comparison stars. This method is occasionally employed to
estimate the magnitude of a very small (in terms of angular size) comets as
observed with the naked eye or through low-power opera glasses that
have a very wide field of view. On such occasions, a comet may appear
essentially stellar, although usually it will have a “softer” look about it com-
pared to nearby stars and will have less “twinkle.”
This method should be used very sparingly and only when a comet
appears truly point-like or as near to this as one is able to discern. Even
then, it is probably best to slightly defocus both the comet and comparison
star images to a small degree, effectively making an estimate according to
the Bobrovnikoff Method. Even some variable star observers find it better
to slightly defocus images of both the variable being observed and of the
comparison stars, on the grounds that the human eye can better judge
small differences in the brightness between two or more small disks of
light than between light sources that are indistinguishable from points.
Sometimes Innovation Is Required!
Although the above constitute the principal methods of brightness estima-

tion that have been used by comet observers over the years, sometimes
circumstances demand different and occasionally more innovative tech-
niques. This applies especially to comets displaying very large naked-eye
comas as, for instance, those objects passing unusually close to Earth. For
example, when in 1983 Comet IRAS-Araki-Alcock passed Earth at a little
over 0.03 AU, the coma appeared to the naked eye as a large fuzzy mass
over 2° wide with a total brightness greater than that of a second-
magnitude star. Myopic people used their “disability” to make naked-eye
Sidgewick estimates by observing the stars sans eyeglasses before don-
ning their glasses again to estimate the comet in focus. Swapping specta-
cles with another person, or even viewing comparison stars through the
“reading glass” portion of a pair of bi-focals, has also been used in similar
circumstances.
Yet another trick is to focus on the end of your finger or the tip of a pencil
held close to the eye while noting the defocused images of the stars
beyond and then comparing these with the naked-eye image of the comet
viewed directly. The author made one estimate by defocusing stars using
two eyeglass lenses of different strengths (this made the star images
88 Chapter 10
sufficiently “fuzzy” to be directly compared with the naked-eye comet)

and, on another night, estimated both comet and comparison stars
through the reverse end of a pair of opera glasses.
Another “trick” for observing bright comets having large apparent diame-
ters is to use two lenses having the same focal length to make a single-
power monocular. The objective lenses of an old pair of toy binoculars have
served this purpose. Simply fix them to the end of two cardboard tubes,
one of which is just slightly smaller in diameter than the other in order to
permit focusing (or, more to the point for the present purpose, defocus-
ing!) and use this for making your estimates. This very simple construction
allows stellar images to be placed far out of focus and comparisons to be
made with comets having extensive comas.
Thirteen years after IRAS-Araki-Alcock swept past our planet, a truly magnifi-
cent comet graced our skies. Officially known as C/1996B2 (Hyakutake), this
object was both intrinsically rather bright and came close to Earth, though not
as close as its 1983 predecessor (about 0.1 AU). Well placed at very large elon-
gation during its close approach, this comet sported a coma more than twice
the (apparent) diameter of the full Moon and a tail that at its best could be
traced more than half way across the entire dome of the heavens. The total
brightness of the coma peaked at around magnitude zero, but its large angu-
lar size made it difficult to compare with the point-like stars of similar luster.
One observer made an estimate by comparing images of both comet and

stars as seen in the surface of a reflective sphere. Once again, the writer
experimented with reverse opera glasses, this time observing only the
comet through the binoculars and comparing its image with those of stars
seen with the naked eye, though placed out of focus by observing them
without eyeglasses. This is an adaptation of the method used to judge the
stellar magnitude of the eclipsed Moon. However, the image as observed
through the reverse binocular cannot be directly compared with the star.
The former will be reduced in size, and therefore in brightness, from its
actual values by a factor equal to the magnification of the binocular.
The opera glasses used in this instance were 2.5 × 25 s. Looking through
the eyepiece end (the “correct” use so to speak) would therefore have made
the comet appear 2.5 times as large and about 6.3 times brighter than it
appeared with the naked eye. Conversely, looking through the “wrong”
end made it appear 2.5 times smaller and 6.3 times fainter. A 6.2-times
reduction in brightness, on the stellar magnitude scale, is very close to a

reduction of two magnitudes.
A “raw” comparison between the reverse comet image and a naked-eye

star would give a value two magnitudes fainter than the comet’s true
brightness. If the reduced image of the comet matched a second magni-
tude star, its true brightness would, therefore, be magnitude zero. If a pair
of 10 × 50 binoculars had been used, the reduction in size would have been
by a factor of 10 and the brightness by a factor of 100. In that case, the
comet would have appeared five magnitudes fainter through the reverse
binoculars and would have required a correction by that amount.
The (welcome!) “problem” with Hyakutake concerned its angular size rather
than its brightness. At zero magnitude, it was certainly a very bright comet,
but there are still a number of stars bright enough for making direct compari-
sons had the apparent diameter of the coma been smaller. The following year,
however, Comet 1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) reached a maximum magnitude of
close to −1, a level of brightness that has very few comparison objects.
The reverse binocular technique was useful in that instance as well.
Comets of exceptional size and/or brightness calling for such unconven-

tional techniques are, however, rare. For the most part, the In-Out Method
is recommended wherever possible. Failing this, in the case of comets that
have a conspicuous condensation, the Morris Method should be employed,
and where very small and highly condensed comets are concerned, the
Out-Out Method may be required, even going to the “extreme” form (“Well
out—Well out”?) when the comet is bright, although the defocusing
should not go so far out as to make the image invisible. The Beyer Method
is best avoided. Very rarely, a comet of unusually small coma diameter or
one that is barely active and exhibits an essentially “asteroidal” appearance
may be suited to in-focus comparisons; however this method should only
be used as a last resort.
Steady Evolution and Sudden Outbursts in Brightness
It has long been apparent to observers of comets that the brightness

development of these objects seldom follows the inverse square law of
heliocentric distance obeyed by objects that merely shine by reflection of
90 Chapter 10
the Sun’s light. That is not surprising, as comets also increase in activity as
they approach the Sun, meaning that there is more material present in the
coma to reflect the Sun’s light, to say nothing of the increasing release of
fluorescing gases.
In terms of magnitudes, the general formula for predicting the brightness

of a comet is given as
m = H 0 + 2.5n log r + 5 log D

where m is the predicted apparent magnitude, H0 is the absolute magni-

tude or the computed magnitude of the comet at one AU from both Earth
and Sun, n is a value relating to the comet’s rate of brightness change with
respect to its solar distance, r is the comet’s distance from the Sun, given in
AU and Δ is the comet’s distance from Earth.
For an object obeying the inverse square law, the value of n in the above
formula would equal 2, i.e., the formula would read
m = H 0 + 5 log r + 5 log D

(neglecting any phase term that would be relevant for an object solely
reflecting sunlight).
Most published ephemerides of comets assume a rate of brightening

according to the inverse fourth power of heliocentric distance (i.e., n = 4),
although predictions assuming an inverse third are also given quite fre-
quently today, especially for comets that might be approaching the Sun for
the first time. Sometimes an inverse sixth power is assumed for short-
period comets. The formulas employing these assumed values of n are
m = H 0 + 10 log r + 5 log D

m = H 0 + 7.5 log r + 5 log D

m = H 0 + 15 log r + 5 log D

Sometimes, we see the absolute magnitude of a comet given as H10. This
refers to the computed absolute magnitude on the assumption that n = 4
and really reflects the conclusion of S. K. Vsekhsvyatskij that the “normal”
response of a comet’s brightness to changing solar distance is best repre-

sented by this value. Based upon this position, he believed that comparing
the H10 values of different comets was the best way of comparing the intrin-
sic “size” of these objects. This conclusion is seriously disputed, but the
tradition of using H10 values for absolute magnitude comparison has not
gone away.
Where a more specific light curve has been derived for a comet at its previ-
ous returns, the formula for this light curve will preferentially be used to
predict the object’s brightness at a coming apparition. One of the aims of
careful monitoring of a comet’s brightness, especially by visual means, is to
enable the derivation of a light curve better describing that comet’s behav-
ior than the simple “default” formulas assuming inverse third, fourth (or
whatever) power. Almost always, a more specifically derived light curve
will reveal that the inverse power changes as the comet approaches and
recedes from the Sun.
Looking back at our earlier comments about the different behavior dis-
played by dynamically new and dynamically old comets with relatively
small perihelia, we noted that both classes tend to display a discontinuity
in their light curves when in the 1.5–2.0 AU region of their inbound orbit.
For new objects, the discontinuity involves a slowing down of the brighten-
ing trend and, in effect, a lowering of the comet’s intrinsic brightness,
whereas for old comets the discontinuity is normally in the other direction,
with a short and sudden spurt in brightening followed by a continuing
trend, more or less parallel with the earlier light curve, but often two or
more magnitudes brighter. This second behavior could be likened to a
surge in brightness of the type discussed later, but it actually represents
the point at which the comet truly “switches on” to its normal level of activ-
ity as water-ice sublimation gets underway. With these differences in mind,
a comet coming in on an orbit indicating an initial approach from the Oort
Cloud, even if apparently brightening rapidly when far from the Sun, is
best assumed to be following an inverse third power law. Indeed, if its peri-
helion distance is very small—well inside the orbit of Earth—it is likely that
its rate of brightening will slow further at small solar distances; to some-
thing more like the inverse 2.7 or even the inverse square. On the other
hand, a comet whose orbit suggests an advanced dynamical evolution is
likely to be better represented by a light curve based upon an inverse 3.3
power or even by a classic “Vsekhsvyatskijan” inverse fourth.
92 Chapter 10
The above remarks must be seen, however, as generalizations. Individual

comets can depart significantly from average trends, with some apparently
new comets steeply brightening all the way to perihelion while other
dynamically old objects are stagnating in their brightness development as
they draw closer to the Sun. In the final analysis, each comet must be
treated as an individual.
Not infrequently, close monitoring of a comet’s behavior will show that,

superimposed upon this regular light curve, there will be temporary vari-
ations in brightness. In some circumstances, at least, these can be corre-
lated with solar activity.
Other comets display far more dramatic variations. Variously described as

“flares” and “outbursts,” these changes in brightness occur suddenly and
can range in amplitude from anywhere between about one magnitude to
over 10 magnitudes. The record-breaker to date was 17P/Holmes, which
flared in 2007 by more than 14 magnitudes from around 17 to 2.8 in just
42 h. This comet had also experienced two similar (though not quite as
great) super outbursts back in 1894 (Fig. 10.1).
Fig. 10.1 Comet 17P/Holmes on November 4, 2007, during the great

outburst, displaying a broad and turbulent Type I tail. (Image courtesy of
Ivan Eder. Used with permission)
Outbursts also take different forms. In some instances, a comet will flare by
several magnitudes within the course of a few hours, only to regain its
original brightness within a matter of days. In instances such as these, the
usual course of events is for the central region of the coma to suddenly
brighten and become more stellar in appearance, dominating the overall
appearance of the comet. Later, the stellar condensation expands and
becomes decreasingly prominent, diffusing relatively rapidly into the gen-
eral coma background. The process may or may not be repeated.
Occasionally a small outburst will occur without any appreciable intensifi-
cation of the central coma. Such an event was noted in early January 2016
when the long-period comet C/2013X1 (PANSTARRS) suddenly brightened,
but without radically changing its appearance. This may indicate that the
outburst was related to solar activity intensifying the fluorescence of the
gas coma rather than a true outburst of activity related to the comet itself.
In addition to outbursts, a number of comets have also experienced bright-

ness surges in which their behavior radically departs from their former
light curve before re-establishing a new light curve with a brighter intrinsic
magnitude. Surges of this nature can be as sudden as outbursts, and in the
initial stages of the event it is not easy to determine whether the comet is
undergoing an outburst or a true brightness surge. The difference lies in
the fact that outbursts are of more or less limited duration, whereas surges
lift the comet’s total brightness to a new level.
A few comets of short period regularly experience brightness surges. These

objects can be expected to undergo a sudden brightening at the same
place in their orbits during each return, so that the surge effectively forms
a part of their regular light curve and should be taken into account when
predictions are being made for their brightness development. Presumably,
some long-period comets also experience “regular” surges but, because we
have not observed their earlier apparitions, we remain unaware of this and
are taken by surprise when such an event occurs. The comet C/2013X1,
mentioned above, experienced a mild surge as well as the outburst in early
2016. These two events may or may not have been associated.
Outbursts appear to have a number of causes. Some relate to solar activity,

whereas others are definitely triggered by an event on the comet’s nucleus
itself. In the earlier discussion of the icy conglomerate model, mention was
made of outbursts being set off by removal of a section of insulating
94 Chapter 10
surface crust exposing fresh underlying ice. Comets that are unusually
prone to experiencing brief outbursts may have regions of crust that are
thin and readily broken. Recent research concerning one of the more
outburst-prone objects—29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann—indicate the
presence of a form of cryovolcanism active on the unusually large nucleus
of this object. More will be said about this fascinating idea, and its implica-
tions for visual observers of this object, later in this book.
Brightness surges, in comets where they form a regular phase of their

brightness development, are more likely the result of an icy and therefore
potentially active region of the comet’s nucleus moving into sunlight due
to the changing orientation of the nucleus as it sweeps around the Sun.
However, when a major surge, possibly accompanied by one or more out-
bursts superimposed on the more persistent increase in brightness,
occurs in a comet (especially one of short period that has not been known
for such activity at earlier returns), it is often the case that the nucleus has
split and a significant volume of fresh internal ice has been exposed to
solar heating for the first time. We will return to the issue of nucleus splitting
in a little while.
Although strictly speaking neither outbursts nor surges, another bright-

ening phenomenon visual observers should be on the alert for can cause
very dramatic departures from the predicted brightness behavior of a
comet. We refer to the scattering of sunlight by particles of fine dust
within the coma and the effect this has on a comet’s brightness in
response to the changing phase angle of the comet. The latter expression
is the term used to describe the angle from the Sun, to the comet and to
the observer (assumed to be on Earth unless otherwise noted). (See
Appendix B in this book.) The phase angle of a comet directly opposite
the Sun is 0°, whereas a comet passing directly between Earth and the
Sun is 180°. Theoretical and observational research, in addition to
laboratory experiments with suspended particles, has shown that the
way very small solid particles, such as those comprising the dust coma of
a comet, scatter sunlight makes their visibility strongly dependent upon
their phase angle.
For phase angles very close to zero, backscattering of sunlight occurs,

although this effect is not a very pronounced one visually. A dust-rich
comet directly opposite the Sun (or very nearly so) should show some
brightness enhancement due to this effect, although it will not be very
significant. (A comet directly behind the Sun should display this effect as
well, although that is of little interest to visual observers!)
The situation is, however, very different in those situations where the
phase angle approaches 180°, that is to say, for a comet situated between
Earth and the Sun. Some studies have indicated that a comet situated at a
phase angle of 180° could theoretically display a brightness enhancement
due to forward scattering of sunlight as great as 10 magnitudes (about
11,000 fold!) above its “base” brightness.
Of course, at that phase angle, the comet would be directly in front of the
Sun and invisible as it transited the solar disk, but the forward scattering
effect is so pronounced that it already makes its presence felt at phase angles
of about 100°. Of course, the effect requires the comet to be a dusty one, but
because any object in a position to display the forward scattering phenom-
enon must be within Earth’s orbit, it will be passing through a relatively high-
temperature region of space where cometary activity is likely to be high and
a good deal of dust is probably being released into the coma.
A classic case of forward-scattering enhancement was provided by the

comet C/1927 X1 (Skjellerup-Maristany). This object provided one of those
unfortunate instances where a truly great comet was very poorly placed as
seen from Earth and only became a spectacular sight for a limited time and
from a limited region. Alas, nobody saw its full grandeur, although those
fortunate enough to have a reasonable view of it described it as a brilliant
and awe-inspiring sight. Nevertheless, just 3 days prior to perihelion pas-
sage, the comet passed almost in line with the Sun as seen from Earth and
experienced a very strong forward-scattering effect. At the time, its “base”
magnitude (what it “should have been” according to its derived light curve)
was about −2, similar to that of Jupiter. That would have made it a bright
comet indeed, although as it was then located just a couple of degrees
from the limb of the Sun, it would have been accessible (if at all) only to
telescopic observers with a good deal of experience in viewing daytime
objects at very small solar elongations. Yet, it not only became visible with
the naked eye, but there were at least two independent discoveries in
broad daylight at that time. Magnitude estimates ranged from −6 to −10,
the latter being equivalent to that of the quarter Moon!
Another example is none other than Halley during its 1910 apparition.
During that return it actually passed directly between Earth and the Sun
96 Chapter 10
and, had the solid nucleus been large enough, it would have been seen in
transit across the solar disk. That did not happen; however two credible
naked-eye daylight observations of this comet were made just prior to its
transit of the Sun. About 3.5 h prior to the transit, Mr. J. B. Bullock in
Hobart (Tasmania) spied the comet in full daylight with a pair of binocu-
lars and 1 h later saw it with his unaided eyes. Switching back to binocu-
lars as the comet neared the Sun, he was able to track it right up to the
limb of the Sun itself.
Secondly, a report published in The Hobart Mercury told of a “group of

ladies” who also watched the comet approach the Sun once the latter
was obscured by a chimney of a nearby building. That both of these
daytime observations were made in Tasmania is partially due to the
comet being high in the sky from that location at the time of the transit,
but it also may relate to the remarkable air quality of the island. Even
today, a station on the northwestern coast is taken as the world standard
for air purity.
Halley’s is not an especially dusty comet, and from the daylight descrip-
tions (“a small white spot” according to the ladies with a similar appear-
ance implied by Bullock’s account), it seems that only the central
condensation was visible. This would have been the most condensed
region having the highest dust content and would probably have had a
“base magnitude” of about 4 at the time. From the Tasmanian observa-
tions, it might be estimated that the real brightness must have been at
least −6 and maybe even a couple of magnitudes brighter, indicating a
forward-scattering enhancement of at least 10 magnitudes!
Other examples of large enhancements in brightness due to forward scat-

tering include Comet Tebbutt of 1861, which was not only a naked-eye
object before sunset at its best but was also observed to cast shadows onto
a white wall, and (more recently) the daytime comets West in 1976 and
McNaught in 2007. Needless to say, there have also been many other
examples of comets that, although not reaching daylight visibility, have
displayed significant brightening at large phase angles.
If a comet is going to pass between Earth and the Sun at small solar elonga-
tion, it is likely, therefore, to become brighter than predicted due to the
phase effect. Even if its predicted magnitude would make it very difficult to
observe at small elongations, it may still be worthwhile trying for it if its

phase angle is larger than about 100°. This is especially true if the comet is
a dusty one.
If you own a Swan band filter, you can determine if it is a mostly dusty or
gassy comet before it reaches minimum elongation. If the comet is more
readily visible through the filter, its light is predominantly from fluorescing
gases, and the dust content will probably be too low for the phase effect to
become significant. On the other hand, if using the filter makes little differ-
ence to the comet’s visibility, or maybe even makes it appear fainter, then
it can be assumed that the lion’s share of its light is sunlight reflected from
dust, and there will almost certainly be a pronounced brightening at large
phase angles.
Diameter of the Coma
It is always preferable to include, together with your magnitude estimate,

a measurement of the apparent diameter of the coma in terms of minutes
of arc. It will be readily appreciated that the total brightness recorded is
influenced by the visible diameter of the coma, and for a diffuse object
such as the average comet, where there is no hard-and-fast boundary
between the outer coma and background sky, this measurement may vary
considerably between observers.
The extent of the coma, as determined by an individual observer, depends

upon several factors. Clarity and darkness of sky are obvious ones, but
there is also the ability of the observer to distinguish very low levels of
luminosity. Some folks have eyes sensitive in this respect, while others do
not, and this could make a significant difference in the estimates of comets
whose light gradually diffuses away across a large diameter. For whatever
reason, if one observer sees a lot more coma than another, the discrepancy
in the magnitude estimates of these two observers ceases to be a mystery
if each supplies a coma diameter estimate as well.
Coma diameters can be measured using several methods. Although it may

sound rough and ready, a quick way is simply by judging the diameter
against the angular separation of stars in the eyepiece field. With some
98 Chapter 10
practice, this method yields quite good results and is sufficiently accurate
given the indefinite boundaries of typical comas.
Direct measurement using a filar micrometer or reticle-equipped eyepiece

is more accurate, although very faint comets can be overwhelmed by the
faint glow of an illuminated reticle. Alternately, for comets at declinations
less than 70° north or south, coma diameter may be derived from the time
it takes the comet to drift past crosshairs. If the comet is observed using an
eyepiece fitted with crosshairs, one of which is oriented in a north-south
aspect, the length of time elapsing between first and last contacts with the
crosshair can be timed using a stopwatch. If this action is repeated a few
times and the average time (in seconds) taken, the coma diameter may be
calculated according to the formula
D = 0.25 T cos d

where D is the coma diameter in minutes of arc, T is the average length of

time in seconds between first and last contact and δ is the comet’s declina-
tion, given in degrees.
Degree of Condensation of Coma
In addition to estimating the diameter of the coma, it is also useful to indi-

cate something of its appearance. Cometary comas are not all alike. Some
are large and diffuse and show little grading of intensity between the
edges and center, whereas others are so small and compact as to appear
little different from slightly out-of-focus stars or planets. Some appear
almost spherical, at times with the brightest region appearing as a sharp
central core, while others possess an almost parabolic outline, frequently
with a central “core” so sharply defined as to appear as a bright star-like
point at the focus of the parabola.
The description of the shape of a coma is best included in any general

notes accompanying your observation, but the appearance of the conden-
sation is given in terms of a recognized scale of ten values from 0 to 9, 0
being totally diffuse and uncondensed and 9 being essentially star-like or
planet-like with very little diffuse nebulosity present. Most comets have
Fig. 10.2 Chart depicting the scale of degrees of condensation in cometary

comas
DCs that range from about 2 up to 7 (Fig. 10.2). Very strongly condensed

comas having DC values of 8 or 9 are typically bright comets observed
quite close to the Sun in twilight or even daylight. However, they may also
be weakly active objects at the other end of the brightness spectrum. Weak
comets (objects that are almost classifiable as asteroids) may allow visual
observers a rare glimpse of the true, solid, cometary nucleus. This might
happen if a body of this nature passes very close to Earth, as was the case
for 209P/LINEAR in May 2014. That comet appeared almost indistinguish-
able from an asteroid (DC = 9) in small telescopes.
Comets may be quite strongly condensed (score relatively high on the DC

scale) without necessarily having the discrete feature known as the central
condensation. This may sound a little confusing, but a comet may simply
appear strongly compact toward the center of its coma and, as such, be
classed as strongly condensed, without the central region being marked by
what might be described as a “bright knot” of material that can be differen-
tiated from the broader profile of the coma. If a comet appears relatively
bright and possesses a discrete central condensation of this type while it is
100 Chapter 10
still far from perihelion, comet observers tend to get rather excited—especially
if the object’s perihelion lies well within the orbit of Earth. Although there
is no guarantee, this tends to be seen as indicative of a really active comet
that, other things being equal, may become a spectacular sight when it
comes closer to the Sun.
Examining the central condensation under relatively high power may reveal
the presence of a minute star-like point of light that is both significantly
fainter than the entire central condensation and clearly differentiated from
it. This is often referred to as the “nucleus” of the comet, although in most
instances it is more properly defined as the “photometric nucleus” rather
than the true solid body that provides the source of all cometary activity, rare
cases such as 209P and 2016 BA14 excepted. (Unfortunately, sometimes the
central condensation itself is also loosely referred to as the “nucleus.” This is
very misleading, and that term should never be used for the central conden-
sation, even when this feature is very bright and pronounced.) When the
photometric nucleus is visible, its brightness may be compared directly (in
focus) with suitable comparison stars, although any report of this should
make it clear that the estimate is of this feature only, not that of the coma per
se. It will, of course, be greatly fainter than the entire coma, once again
excepting rare objects such as 209P and 2016 BA14.
Other Coma Features That May Be Visible
In addition to the central condensation, the coma of a comet—especially,

though not necessarily a bright and active one—may display a number of
other features discernible to the visual observer.
Concentric hoods or envelopes, mainly visible on the sunward side of a

sharply defined central condensation, are a frequent feature of bright comets
that display an approximately parabolic form of the coma. Famous historic
examples of comets displaying these features include the brilliant Donati of
1858 and Coggia of 1874 (Fig. 3.4), the latter displaying hoods that were both
concentrically and eccentrically placed with respect to the central condensa-
tion. More recent examples include the periodic comet Swift-Tuttle, the
comet responsible for the annual August Perseid meteor shower, during its
latest return in 1993, and the spectacular Hale-Bopp of 1997.
The hoods observed in the coma of the latter were especially conspicuous
and could be discerned even in very small telescopes, looking almost like
ripples spreading out from a stone dropped into a phosphorescent pond!
Although these comets were all intrinsically bright objects, weaker and
less well defined hoods have also been noted in smaller comets, so any
object under observation should be watched for the possible presence of
these features.
Related to hoods are the jets that certain comets have been observed to
display. These are also most likely to be present in bright and very active
objects and typically emanate from the sunward side of the nuclear con-
densation before curving back into the tail. They are mostly not very con-
spicuous features, although occasional comets will erupt with bright jets
that are readily visible in modest equipment. Halley’s Comet briefly
sported a very bright example not long after it emerged from the morning
twilight following its perihelion passage in 1986, and Hale-Bopp was
described as “bristling with jets” long before it reached perihelion in 1997.
Although not strictly speaking a jet, Comet Hyakutake, when passing rela-
tively close to our planet in 1996, displayed a dust plume projecting in an
anti-solar direction from the central condensation. When viewed through a
telescope of moderate aperture, this looked just like a small comet at the
core of the large one!
Relatively high magnifications are normally best for seeking out jet activ-
ity, although the dust plume of Hyakutake was even visible in large bin-
oculars. Similarly, the envelopes of Hale-Bopp could be seen in the
smallest of telescopes, although larger instruments not surprisingly pro-
vided the best views.
Features of this nature occur when small but potentially very active regions
on the surface of a comet’s nucleus come into sunlight as the nucleus
rotates on its axis. Fountains of gas, carrying fine dust particles along with
them, sprout from the nucleus surface like geysers, curving into arcs as the
nucleus rotates beneath their extremities. Sudden outbursts of activity,
possibly as a section of insulating refractory crust, displaced from the
nucleus surface due to an underlying build-up of gas, may cause the cen-
tral condensation to suddenly brighten and intensify. In time, this will fade
and begin to spread, maybe propagating through the coma as an expanding
envelope before diffusing away into the general coma background.
102 Chapter 10
We have already remarked about processes similar to this in the discussion

of brightness outbursts, but here attention is drawn to outbursts that are
confined to the central condensation alone, having only minimal effect
upon the total coma brightness. Comet Hale-Bopp exhibited several of
these “central” outbursts, resulting in conspicuous brightening of the cen-
tral condensation but hardly affecting the total magnitude of the coma.
Interestingly and perhaps significantly, these episodes only occurred when
the comet was far from perihelion and relatively faint. Both pre- and post-
perihelic outbursts were noted, but there were no counterparts when the
comet was near the Sun and bright.
Examination of the nuclear condensation under moderate or high magni-

fication will sometimes reveal an even more dramatic phenomenon—the
splitting of a comet’s nucleus. Although not always accompanied by an
outburst of brightness, this is very often the case as the splitting of the
solid nucleus exposes fresh internal ice to the heat of the Sun and triggers
a surge in the comet’s activity. Any large and sudden outburst or surge in
brightness, therefore, may be indicative of a splitting of the nucleus, and
the central condensation should be carefully examined under high power
following such an event.
Some comets (for instance, the periodic objects 29P/Schwassmann-

Wachmann, Tuttle-Giacobini-Kresak, Pons-Brooks and even 1P/Halley) are
prone to outbursts that are not related to nuclear disruption, and several
other comets of short period (two notable examples being d’Arrest and
10P/Tempel) regularly surge in brightness at specific places in their orbits.
By contrast, however, a normally well behaved object that suddenly bursts
out has very likely split and is well worth close attention, especially if (as
mentioned earlier) the comet’s brightness does not return to its pre-out-
burst state relatively quickly, but instead remains elevated as a persisting
brightness surge. A continuing level of enhanced activity implies that more
than an isolated pocket of fresh ice has been exposed and this in turn prob-
ably indicates that there has been some major disruption of the nucleus,
probably involving the splitting away of a large chunk of material.
Nevertheless, the appearance of a secondary point of light close to the

photometric nucleus should not immediately be assumed as incontrovert-
ible evidence of a split nucleus, even if it may follow a major brightness
outburst. The fact is that many reports of apparently split comets turn out
to be something else. Observations of a comet at low elevation can

sometimes give false impressions of a split or multiple nucleus, and faint
stars shining through the central regions of the coma can also cause confu-
sion. Checking the presence of stars at the position of the suspected sec-
ondary nucleus is the first step that should be taken and is a quite simple
task if a good (and preferably photographic) star chart is available. A few
minutes observation will also reveal whether the suspected secondary
condensation is moving together with the comet or remaining still as the
comet moves past it.
Another source of possible confusion is the presence of condensations of

matter within the innermost coma region, possibly related to the sort of jet
activity as described above. These can at times look deceptively like split
nuclei, although they will tend to be transitory in nature and will likely
move away from the nucleus at higher velocity than what is normally
expected for genuine solid nucleus fragments.
If a secondary nucleus is observed or suspected, a note should be made to

this effect in your observation report. It would also be helpful if at least an
approximate estimate of the separation of the secondary from the primary
(assume the brighter to be the primary) and the position angle (PA) of the
secondary, with respect to the primary, is given. If you do not possess a
micrometer, the former may be estimated against the known separation of
nearby double stars or even compared with planetary diameters. With
respect to the position angle, this measurement will be met again shortly
in recording the orientation of comet tails. In relation to the position of a
secondary fragment of a split nucleus, it is the angle between the primary
and secondary measured from north (0°) through east. As an example, a
secondary condensation due south of the principal one has a PA of 180°,
one due west has a PA of 270° and so forth. An approximate measurement
of PA is better than nothing, but, failing that, even a simple remark such as
“the secondary was located along the spine of the tail, about 30 arc sec
from the main condensation” should be enough to enable other observers
to check your report and, hopefully, confirm the presence of a secondary
condensation.
Speaking of secondary condensations also raises the possibility of another

feature, albeit one that is usually very faint and observed more often via
non-visual means. We refer here to a secondary comet! Occasionally, a fragment
104 Chapter 10
that has broken away from the main mass during an earlier perihelion
passage, or even at a large distance from the Sun, has drifted far enough
from the principal nucleus to arrive at perihelion outside the coma of the
main comet. Such a comet may be observed traveling along essentially the
same orbit, a little like a child following (or sometimes even ahead of) its
mother. Most recent discoveries of secondary objects of this nature have
been made on CCD images, but a visual sweep in the vicinity of a comet is
still worth trying. Chances of finding anything unusual are admittedly
remote, but they are zero if you do not look at all!
As remarked above, splitting of a comet’s nucleus is not infrequently asso-

ciated with a strong outburst in brightness. When a comet of short period,
especially one that is normally well-behaved, suddenly flares, it not infre-
quently happens that at the comet’s next return to perihelion, one or more
secondary comets will be found accompanying it. Once again, these days
the discovery of such objects is mostly by n on-visual means, although vis-
ual observations are always welcome if the secondary objects become
sufficiently bright. The most famous instance of this phenomenon is the
historic Comet Biela (refer back to Figs. 3.1 and 3.2), but many other exam-
ples have now been recorded, some of them involving multiple secondary
objects.
A relatively recent and spectacular instance involved the comet 73P/

Schwassmann-Wachmann, formerly known as Schwassmann-Wachmann 3
(not to be confused with the well-known Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 or
29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, as it is now known). The third comet dis-
covered by these astronomers was found during an exceptionally favora-
ble return in 1930 but was subsequently lost until 1979. It appeared well
behaved until its return of 1995, when it suddenly surged in brightness
from around magnitude 12 to nearly 5, becoming faintly visible with the
naked eye from suitable locations. In addition to this dramatic rise in
brightness, it also developed an impressive dust tail that, at its best, was
also seen by naked-eye observers who were blessed with clear and dark
skies. Through binoculars, the comet had the appearance of a “great
comet,” as seen with the unaided eye.
In addition to the enduring surge in the comet’s brightness, there were also
several outbursts during which the central condensation would become
temporally much more pronounced. By late 1995, high-magnification
Fig. 10.3 Split comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, April 1, 2006. Three

components, together with a connecting debris trail, are visible in this IR
image by Spitzer. (Image courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech)
observations of the central condensation revealed several discrete centers,

indicating that some fragments had separated from the nucleus. The follow-
ing return of this comet in 2002 was a relatively poor one, but the comet
was recovered, and several secondary comets were found close to the pri-
mary. The next return in 2006 was, however, the most favorable since that
of 1930, with the comet making a close approach to Earth. In excess of 60
secondary comets were observed, most of them faint, although the major
one, together with the primary comet, became bright enough to be seen
with the naked eye (Fig.10.3).
An even more recent example of multiple secondary comets involved the

short-period comet Ikeya-Murakami. This object has already been
mentioned as having been discovered during what was obviously a huge
outburst of brightness. Having a period of just 5.42 years, it would have
been found much earlier had it been even close to the intrinsic brightness
displayed at discovery. The fact that it had not been discovered indicates
that it must have formerly been very faint intrinsically. It may even have
been completely dormant.
106 Chapter 10
The comet returned to perihelion in March 2016, and some astronomers

thought (or hoped!) that it may have retained enough of its outburst luster
to become visually observable with small telescopes. The 2016 return was
a very favorable one, with the comet much better placed for observing
than it had been in 2010. On the other hand, it was not impossible that
whatever had triggered the outburst of 2010 might have destroyed the
comet completely and that nothing would be seen in 2016.
The truth, as often happens, lay somewhere between these two extremes.
The comet did return on schedule, but it never became sufficiently bright
to be observed by visual techniques. Nevertheless, it was well observed via
CCD imagery, through which it was soon found to be accompanied by a
string of several secondary comets linked together by a very dim trail of
debris stretching away from the principal object. Although most of the
secondary comets were very faint, one was consistently almost as bright as
the primary.
Around the time of perihelion in mid-March, the number of individual com-

ets had grown to 12 (the principal one and 11 secondary objects) as
recorded on deep CCD images. The principal comet also sported a very
short and rather ill-defined tail pointing away at a very different angle from
that of the debris trail. Clearly, these secondary comets originated as frag-
ments that had broken away from the main nucleus, and it was logical to
think that they most probably came adrift during the 2010 outburst.
Maybe a build-up of gas inside the comet’s nucleus blew it apart at that
time or perhaps it was even struck by a large meteorite that broke it into
several segments. Either way, the sudden and dramatic exposure of fresh
internal ice to the warmth of the Sun would result in a sudden activation of
the formerly dormant or semi-dormant comet and account for the discov-
ery outburst.
Surprisingly, the true situation seems to be more complex than this. A

study by Z. Sekanina of the motion of the secondary comets and their posi-
tions relative to the primary demonstrated that they could not have bro-
ken away as long ago as 2010. On the contrary, they must have split from
the main mass as the comet moved inward toward its 2016 perihelion pas-
sage. Apparently the event of 2010 weakened the nucleus, causing it to
fragment at a later date, maybe at the first sign of activity as it approached
the next perihelion passage or maybe simply as a consequence of the
increasing gravitational tug of the Sun. If the comet also fragmented in

2010, and if that fragmentation triggered the outburst, any fragments
released must then have completely crumbled away prior to 2016.
The Ikeya-Murakami incident shows how complicated the behavior of com-

ets can be, and, although visual observations were not possible in that
instance (not, at least, during the 2016 return), it should not diminish their
importance in monitoring similar anomalous behavior displayed by com-
ets brighter than Ikeya-Murakami.
Observing the Tails of Comets: What to Look For and Record 109
CHAPTER 11
OBSERVING THE TAILS OF COMETS: WHAT TO LOOK

FOR AND RECORD
Although the characteristic feature of a comet is really the coma, in the

popular mind it is surely the tail. This is not surprising, of course, as the tail
of a comet (although not always present or, at least, not always visible) can
be that object’s most spectacular attribute. Comet tails may be short, faint
and inconspicuous or they may be magnificent streamers of light extend-
ing for many degrees away from the coma.
The light of the tail is not included in the comet’s total magnitude, although
in practice, sometimes the coma and tail blend into each other so perfectly
that it is inevitable that some of the tail will be “caught up” in the coma
estimate. The two properties of the tail it is most important to record are its
length and its position angle.
Length of Tail
The length is normally given in degrees, although for very short tails min-
utes of arc may be used instead. Relatively short tails, such as those typi-
cally traced in binoculars or wide-field telescopes, are most readily
measured if they are first drawn on a suitable star chart, preferably one
showing stars down to magnitude 9 or 10. If only the brighter stars are
shown, there will be too few for the length and direction of the tail to be
measured with sufficient accuracy. Determining the tail’s extent in this way
simply involves measuring its length drawn on the chart and comparing
this with the chart’s scale.

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_11
110 Chapter 11
Because comet tails typically grow fainter with increasing distance from
the head, and because there is no distinct “end” of the tail, the apparent
length as seen at first glance in the eyepiece may be misleading. An inter-
esting trick used by observers of faint objects is the technique of so-called
“averted vision.” Because of the human eye’s physiology, looking directly
toward an object does not mean that light from that object is reaching the
most sensitive part of the retina. The fovea—the small region of the retina
directly behind the pupil—contains only cones, that is to say, cells that are
good detectors of color but which are not very sensitive to low levels of
luminosity. The cells capable of best detecting dim light are the rods, which
are found outside of this region. Thus, by looking a little to the side (best
on the side of vision closest to the nose, actually), while keeping attention
on the object at the center of vision, the light falls on the rods and enables
dim illumination to become visible.
A modified form of averted vision may also be achieved by moving the

image across the field of vision. Because the human eye is good at detecting
moving objects, slightly moving the eyepiece field (or moving your head if
you are observing naked eye), and thereby causing the comet image to
move across the field of vision, can make the tail appear to “flash out” to a
much greater length than what is apparent to direct viewing alone.
A word of caution, however! It is easy, when determining the length of faint

tails, for averted vision to slide over into what some observers have (a little
sarcastically!) referred to as “averted imagination.” Nearly all visual observ-
ers have fallen into this trap at times. The problem is made worse if there
are faint stars in line with the extremity of the tail, as the eye’s tendency to
“connect the dots” can give the illusion of a greater tail extension than is
actually present. Nevertheless, unless you are quite certain that an align-
ment of stars or some other feature of the night sky truly has given the
illusion of a longer tail, it is advisable to include the suspected greater
length as “possible” in your observing notes. Give the length that you have
positively established in the main body of your report, but also note that
the tail was suspected to be longer.
It was stated earlier that the length of relatively short tails can be satisfactorily
determined by simply measuring their extent on a suitable star chart. This is
quite sufficient for the tail lengths typically displayed by bright telescopic
comets, that is to say, up to 3 or 4° or thereabouts. Even naked-eye tails of up
to around 10° can be measured in this way, but for anything longer than this,
a different method must be employed. The problem is that the sky as we

perceive it is not flat, like a star chart, and if we measure distances on the
celestial sphere as if they were distances on a flat surface, we encounter
systematic errors that become too large to ignore when distances of about
10° and over are encountered. It is a little like measuring distances on a flat
map of the world (where Greenland appears about as large as the continental
USA!), except that there the difference is between a flat and a convex surface.
Distances on the dome of sky are measured on a concave surface. But in
either instance, a flat map or chart is not a realistic representation.
Determining the length of tails of moderate or long extent, therefore,

requires somewhat more attention.
One method involves a little calculation using the formula
Cosi = sin d1 sin d 2 + cos d1 cos d 2 cos ( a1 - a 2 )

where ℓ denotes the tail length in degrees, a1 and δ1 are the right ascension
and declination of the comet’s head and a2 and δ2 are the right ascension
and declination of the tail’s greatest extremity, all given in degrees.
With the aid of a scientific calculator, the math can be quickly performed,
even in the field, without the need for trigonometric tables. Simply plot the
position of the coma on a star chart (or use the ephemeris position for that
matter) and make a similar plot of the furthest extremity of the tail, and use
these figures in the above formula. Remember, however, that the values for
right ascension are given in degrees.
Another method for determining the naked-eye length of long comet tails
is by means of a simple “sky crossbow” of the type described in an article in
the magazine Sky & Telescope for May 1981 (p. 417). A device such as this
enables quick measurements to be made in the field.
The sky crossbow is constructed from a flexible yardstick or meter stick, a

rod and a length of string. Attach the middle of the yardstick to the end of
the rod in such a way that your eye is 57 in. (or 57 cm if a meter stick is
being used) from the middle of the stick. A wood dowel or length of PVC
pipe are good materials for this purpose, and the rod may even be made
collapsible for ease of storage and transport into the field.
112 Chapter 11
To use the crossbow, simply attach the string to both ends of the stick such
that the latter bows toward the eye-end of the rod with 2.74 in. (2.75 cm)
in space from the string to the middle of the stick. Aim the bow at the
comet, place the long stick in contact with your cheekbone and look along
the stick to determine how many inches or cm (which will equal the num-
ber of degrees) corresponds to the length of the comet’s tail. A red flash-
light will enable you to read the scale, but make sure of the tail’s extremity
before turning this on, as even faint red light might be enough to obscure
its very faint extremities.
Final calibrations of the device can be made using known star separations,
such as those given in Table 11.1, and, if it is necessary, the length of the
rod can be adjusted to improve the accuracy of the readings.
Table 11.1 Sample Angular Separations of Pairs of Stars
Star pair Separation in degrees

α Boo α Vir 32.8
α Boo β Leo 35.3
α Boo ζ UMa 37.1
α Boo α Lyr 59.1
α Lyr α Cyg 23.8
α Aql α Lyr 34.2
α Aql α Cyg 38.0
α Aql α Sco 60.3
α Ori α CMa 27.1
α Ori α CMi 26.0
α Ori α Tau 21.4
α Tau α Aur 30.7
α Cen α Cru 15.6

α Cen α Car 58.0
α Cen α Eri 61.3
Position Angle (PA) of the Tail
Another important measurement is that of the direction, or position angle

(PA), of the tail with respect to the comet’s head. We have already spoken
about the position angle of secondary nuclei, and, as in that instance, the
PA of a comet’s tail is always measured from north through east. Therefore,
a tail pointing due north has a PA of 0°, one pointing east has a PA of 90°,
one pointing due south 180° and so forth (Fig. 11.1). If the tail is drawn on
a star chart, the PA can be readily measured using a protractor.
Features to Look For in the Tail
In general, plasma tails show the most detail, although this is better
revealed in images than with the eye alone. Dust tails, on the other hand,
reflect sunlight in the region of the spectrum to which the human eye is
more sensitive, but are often intrinsically faint and tend to be rather
Fig. 11.1 Position angle (PA) of comet tail measured from north (0°)
through east (90°)
114 Chapter 11
featureless. Nevertheless, comet tails (like comets themselves!) show a

great degree of variation and sometimes surprise us not only with the
degree of detail displayed but by the rapid way in which this can change
from night to night or even over shorter periods of time.
Tail Rays
The fine ray structure of plasma tails is spectacularly caught on photo-

graphs, but in the more intense specimens can also be apparent visually as
well. Typically, these rays are very narrow and group more or less sym-
metrically on either side of an imaginary line from the Sun through the
center of the coma. Their classic appearance is like a narrow fan diverging
from the coma (refer back to Fig. 4.4). Sometimes the center of the fan
appears relatively dark and devoid of rays, giving the appearance of a
shadow cast by the central regions of the coma.
Disconnection Events (DEs) and Other Irregularities
Sometimes, however, the form of the plasma tail is a lot less neat and
regular. As tails of this type are propelled by the solar wind, variations in
this “wind” can have some rather wild effects on them. (Note, for exam-
ple, the turbulence in the plasma tail of C/2013 Q1 shown in Fig. 4.2.)
Rays, sections of the tail, even the entire tail itself can disconnect com-
pletely from the comet’s head (Figs. 11.2 and 11.3). There are instances
where a detached tail floats away like an elongated luminous cloud while
the comet sprouts an entirely new one disconnected from the first. These
occurrences are known, not surprisingly, as disconnection events (DEs for
short) and occur because of an interesting structure found within the
solar wind.
As the Sun turns on its axis, making one full revolution every 25 days, the
solar wind spiraling out from it is divided into sectors of alternate mag-
netic polarities. This system rotates, as comet expert Fred Whipple once
expressed it, “like a huge expanding phonograph record” (a statement
obviously made prior to the days of CDs!), and this rotation causes these
sectors to sweep across any comet that happens to be in the way. It is
Fig. 11.2 Disconnection of single ray within the tail of Comet Biela in 1846. Also
note the apparent envelopes shown within the coma. (Drawing by E. Weib)
when the comet encounters the sudden changes in magnetic polarity

accompanying the passage of a sector boundary that the tail is swept
away and a DE occurs.
Fig. 11.3 Disconnection of Type I tail of Comet 2007 N3 (Lulin) on February 4,
2009. (Image courtesy of Joseph Brimascombe. Used with permission)
On other occasions, while not actually disconnecting, an ion tail will suddenly
develop a kink that may be as great as 90° to the tail axis. One comet
(Tomita-Gerber-Honda) back in 1964, developed an S-shaped kink in its tail
at a distance of almost 30° from the head! Kinks and knots of material in the
plasma tail betray the presence of magnetic eddies in the solar wind as it
sweeps down the tail and drags the cometary ions along with it.
Another type of transient event related to ion tails involves what may be
called a “tail flare,” that is to say, a sudden and brief intensification of the
tail, usually also revealing itself as a significant increase in the tail’s visual
length as the more distant sections of the tail, previously below the thresh-
old of visual detection, brighten into view. These events are typically
accompanied by a slight brightening of the coma as well, although this
may amount to no more than a brightness increase of less than half a mag-
nitude. The author has observed three quite remarkable instances of this
phenomenon, and on each occasion the comet had returned to its former
appearance by the following night. Clearly, the events in question had
durations shorter than 24 h, possibly much shorter than 24 h. Because of
their short duration, these occurrences are probably a lot more common
than the scarcity of reports might seem to imply. Of the three instances
witnessed by myself, it appears that I was the sole observer of two.
The remaining event was reported by two other observers, but it may be
significant that all three of us lived on the east coast of Australia, approxi-
mately along the same meridian of longitude and all witnessed the event
at about the same time of the night.
In common with DEs and similar transient ion-tail events, it appears that
tail flares correlate with solar activity rather than with anything intrinsic to
the comets themselves. This, at least, is the conclusion reached following
the discovery of an apparent link between one of the three witnessed
flares and activity on the Sun. Moreover, a previous event experienced by
the same comet [C/2007 F1 (LONEOS)] was imaged by STEREO and also
linked with solar activity. At the time of this earlier tail flare, the comet was
too deep in twilight to be visible from the ground. Together with the vari-
ous tail disturbances noted earlier, it therefore seems that these sudden
and transitory enhancements of the intensity of ion tails signify the
presence of a link between solar and cometary activity and for that reason
alone should always be reported if you are fortunate enough to be in the
right place at the right time to witness one.
118 Chapter 11
Features Sometimes Displayed by Dust Tails
By contrast with ion tails, those comprised of dust tend to show little if any
fine detail and most commonly appear rather “sedate,” changing only
slowly without any sudden surprises. Moreover, because they are “flat”
features in the sense that they spread away from the comet in a curving fan
having little depth, their appearance and even their visibility critically
depends upon the observing geometry at any particular time. This is
because the particles composing them remain close to the plane of the
comet’s orbit and therefore their apparent intensity depends greatly on
where Earth is located in relation to this plane. That is to say, when our
planet is in such a position with relation to the comet’s orbit that the dust
tail is observed “face on,” so to speak, our line of sight will necessarily pass
through the thinnest part of the tail, and, if the tail is not an especially
intense one, its surface brightness may be so low as to prove very difficult
to observe visually. It may even escape detection altogether.
Nevertheless, if the same comet is viewed from a position close to its

orbital plane, the dust tail will be seen more or less edge on, and the
observer’s line of sight will pass through the (quite considerable) width of
this feature. The same tail that was difficult to trace when observed face on
may then emerge as a beautiful streamer of diffuse light. However, because
it is now being observed from the side, it will look straight rather than
curved. Its actual curvature will be in our line of sight.
A good example of the changing visibility of dust tails with changing per-
spective was provided by Comet Austin back in 1990. During late April and
early May of that year, the comet was well placed from the Southern
Hemisphere, but most observers saw it as little more than a round blob of
light—rather like a large but unresolved globular star cluster—that was
either described as being tailless or with at most a faint appendage. Yet, by
late May and early June, the tail intensified dramatically as well as increas-
ing in length. Even though the comet was moving away and fading, it
became an impressive object for binoculars during the first week of June.
The reason was not difficult to find. On June 6, Earth passed through the
plane of the comet’s orbit, giving us a splendid edge-on perspective of the
dust tail. Comet Austin was rather low in dust production, so its dust tail
was necessarily weak, but the view in early June certainly brought it out of
its former obscurity!
Fig. 11.4 Comet 1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp), April 4, 1997, displaying a classic

Type II dust tail and a rather broad Type I ion tail comprised of several rays.
(Image courtesy of E. Kolmhofer, H. Raab, Johannes-Kepler Observatory,
Linz, Austria. Used with permission)
In the case of large and dust-rich comets such as Bennett of 1970, Hale-
Bopp 1997 (Fig. 11.4) and McNaught of 2007, the dust tail is a beautiful
sight independent of the perspective from which it is viewed. Comets such
as these sport very intense dust tails that are bright and conspicuous even
when seen face-on. Such a perspective reveals the true shape and spread-
ing extent of these bright tails, as these features delicately curve like lumi-
nous scimitars held in the sky. This classic shape was beautifully displayed
by the historic Comet Donati in 1858 (Fig. 4.1) and is preserved in several
works of art depicting this magnificent object as well as in the first photo-
graph ever taken of a comet.
120 Chapter 11
Moreover, bright dust tails such as those displayed by “great comets” such
as Donati, Bennett, West (1976), Hale-Bopp, McNaught and so forth are not
always featureless. Sometimes they display a system of broad “streamers”
diverging from the central region of the coma. These rare features are not
to be confused with the “rays” seen in ion tails. They are broader (hence
their description as “streamers” rather than as “rays”), and they, in common
with the tails that feature them, are comprised of dust instead of ionized
gas. These features were spectacularly displayed by Comet West, the Great
Comet of 1976, giving this object a multi-tailed appearance when at its
best (Fig. 11.5).
The solid dust particles comprising these streamers follow trajectories

known as “synchrones.” Basically, a synchrone is the path taken by particles
of different sizes that have been simultaneously (or synchronously, as the
term implies) released from a comet’s nucleus.
Fig. 11.5 Comet West in March 1976, displaying spectacular striae in its
Type II tail. (Image courtesy of J. Linder/ESO, at http://www.eso.org/public/
images/c-west-1976-PS/)
As soon as a particle is freed from the nucleus, it comes under the influence
of two opposing forces, each originating in the Sun. On the one hand, it is
subject to solar gravitational attraction pulling it toward the Sun and, on
the other, to solar radiation pressure propelling it in the opposite direction.
The balance between the two determines its path, and this balance will, in
its turn, depend upon the mass of the particle itself. Essentially, larger par-
ticles move slowly away, as solar gravity partially cancels out the repulsive
pressure of sunlight, while finer particles succumb more readily to radiation
pressure and are swept away more rapidly in the anti-solar direction.
The largest particles are not substantially affected by radiation pressure at

all, but these need not concern us at the moment. The upshot of all this
juggling of opposing forces is to cause a cloud of particles released in a
single burst from a comet’s nucleus, or streaming out from an especially
active hot spot, to stretch out into a long streamer as the smaller ones are
swept further than their larger siblings over the same period of time. It was
this process that gave rise to the spectacular streamers of Comet West.
A second type of structure has also been noted within the dust tails of
comets. These structures are known as “striae” and were at one time also
thought to be synchronous features like the streamers. Indeed, they seem
not to have been distinguished from the rarer streamers. Historical comets
noted for their displays of striae include the Great Comet of 1744 (where
the striae were mistakenly recorded as a system of multiple tails), Donati,
the “Daylight Comet” of January 1910, Mrkos (August 1957), Seki-Lines
(1962), Ikeya-Seki (1965) West, Hale-Bopp and, in a grand manner. 2006 P1
(McNaught) in January of 2007. (The great, curving, striated tail of the lat-
ter has been suggested as an example of what the ancient writer Pliny
described as a “horse comet,” the tail taking the form of the curving mane
of some gigantic celestial horse!) Interestingly, images obtained by the
SOHO space-based coronagraphs also revealed a nice display of striae in
the tail of the unusual short-period comet 96P/Machholz at a time when it
was too close to the Sun to be observed from the ground.
The reader probably noticed that Comet West was included in this list of
notable comets displaying striae. The complex tail of this magnificent
object did indeed display both true synchronous streamers and striae at
the same time, and it is noteworthy that the two features intersected one
another at angles of between 5 and 10°, making interesting bifurcated
spikes within the tail (Fig. 11.6).
122 Chapter 11
Fig. 11.6 Both the striae and synchron bands are depicted in this painting of
Comet West by Stephen Wiggins. (Reproduced with permission of the artist)
This difference in orientation with respect to true synchronous features

exemplifies one of the difficulties faced by the old idea that the striae are
synchrones. Their orientation with respect to the comet’s head is wrong.
If they truly do represent streams of particles released simultaneously by
bursts of activity on the surface of the nucleus, imaginary lines drawn
along the striae and projected backward toward the comet should eventually
intersect at the nucleus. However, they do not! Imaginary lines drawn

along typical striae and projected backward toward their apparent point of
origin characteristically intersect at a spot somewhere between the com-
et’s nucleus and the Sun. This observation, together with the amazingly
regular appearance normally displayed by series of striae, simply did not fit
with the idea that these tail structures were caused by intermittent eruptions
of particles from the nucleus.
But If Striae Are Not Synchrone Streamers, What Are They?
Various suggestions were put forward, including the speculation that these
features might be composed, not of dust but of heavy ions that lined up
along lines of magnetic force. Although magnetic fields acting on electrified
particles was a process viewed favorably by a number of astronomers, the
spectrum of striae was clearly that of reflected sunlight, just like the other
regions of the dust tails displaying them. There could be little room for doubt
that striae are truly dust features and not composed of ions.
The most acceptable solution to the mystery is the model proposed by Z.

Sekanina, an expert in cometary astronomy who has made a special study
of the dynamical evolution of particles and fragments released from the
nuclei of these objects. Recall our earlier discussion of the manner in which
particles of differing masses assume varying trajectories as they move away
from a comet nucleus under the influence of the opposing forces of solar
radiation repulsion and solar gravitational attraction. Our earlier example
involved the manner in which particles of differing masses, but released at
the same time, got sorted out along a trajectory known as a synchrone.
However, synchrones are not the only types of curves relevant to the deter-
mination of the forms assumed by cometary dust tails. Imagine a continuous
flow of dust particles of a wide range of masses outward from an active
nucleus. The very small particles, having little mass, are only minimally
affected by the gravitational tug of the Sun’s. They are, by contrast,
strongly affected by solar radiation pressure, with the result that they are
repelled rapidly away in a direction quite close to the anti-solar aspect,
albeit not exactly away from the Sun. At the other end of the scale, rela-
tively massive particles will be little affected by solar radiation pressure,
124 Chapter 11
and as a consequence of this, will move away almost along the comet’s
orbit. In between these extremes, particles of different masses will take up
a whole range of trajectories, the precise shape of which will be deter-
mined by the interplay of the opposing forces and the extent to which one
or the other prescribes the particles’ paths.
The family of curves describing the trajectories of these particles are

known as syndynes. Whereas a synchrone defines the shape of a trail of
particles having different masses but released from the nucleus at the
same time (as we have already stated), a syndyne defines the path of par-
ticles of equal mass released over time. The syndynes of small particles
will, for the reasons already cited, be less strongly curved (i.e., they will
assume a trajectory closer to a straight line from the Sun through the
comet nucleus and extending in the anti-solar direction) than syndynes of
more massive particles. The widely diverse family of syndynes manifests
in the typically wide and delicately curved shape of the classical Type II
dust tails.
Now, coming back to striae, Sekanina noted that these features appeared
to emanate from the most strongly curving region of Type II dust tails, that
is to say, from their concave edge. It will quickly be seen from what has just
been said that this is the region where syndyne analysis predicts the larg-
est particles of the dust tail to be located. Particles end up in this region
because they are too massive to be quickly swept away by radiation pres-
sure and therefore tend to lag behind the comet in relative proximity to its
orbital path. This gave Sekanina a clue to what is happening here. He pro-
posed that many of these large particles were disrupted, possibly through
heat stress, although electrostatic repulsion resulting from the particles
acquiring a charge on exposure to ionizing solar radiation may also be a
factor, as indeed may be the occurrence of mutual collisions.
Whatever the cause or causes, the result of these myriad disruptions is the
release of vast numbers of very fine particles that are, of course, far more
susceptible to the repulsive effects of solar radiation than their now shat-
tered parents. But because these small particles are generated along the
concave boundary of the tail and not at the nucleus itself, the repulsive
effect of solar radiation sweeps them more or less across the tail rather than
along it. The streams of fine dust resulting from this will point more nearly
away from the Sun than from the comet head.
Because they emanate from a strongly curving inner edge of the tail, their
orientation will be such that, if they are extended backward toward the
Sun, they will tend to converge at some point between the comet and the
Sun itself, just as the striae are in fact found to do. Moreover, if the striae
really are composed of fine dust, as this model indicates, they should be
more reflective than adjacent regions of the tail. Once again, this is exactly
what is found. The “striated” regions of a dust tail are typically the brightest
parts. This was dramatically demonstrated by the sungrazing comet Ikeya-
Seki in 1965. In this instance, although the section of the tail crossed by
striae was some distance from the head, it was noticeable brighter than the
region of tail immediately adjacent to the coma. Typically one would
expect the tail to grow fainter with increasing distance from the head, but
that was clearly not the case for Ikeya-Seki.
Tail Spines and “Shadow of the Nucleus”
Comet tails sometimes display a bright ray extending down their middle,
beginning at the nucleus and orientated in an essentially anti-solar direction.
An example of this “spine” formation is shown in Fig. 3.5.
At other times, the tail assumes an opposite appearance and displays a dark
shadow-like feature along the central part of the tail, as if the comet’s head is
somehow casting its shadow along the tail. This feature is, indeed, not infre-
quently referred to as the “shadow of the nucleus,” although it is not a “shadow”
in any literal sense. It is most often apparent in dust tails and is, in short, simply
a region of the tail that “should” be occupied by dust particles that for some
reason either failed to be emitted or did not make it into the tail. An example
is depicted in the drawing of Coggia’s Comet of 1874, reproduced in Fig. 3.4.
A striking example of this feature was displayed by the bright comet

Seki-Lines in 1962. Calculations of the trajectories of particles of various
sizes emitted over the time of the comet’s activity revealed that the
“shadow” marked that portion of the dust tail where particles released during
several hours around the time of perihelion were theoretically predicted to
be present. It was as if the comet closed down its activity during perihelion
passage, only to fully reactivate several hours later!
126 Chapter 11
This particular comet is noteworthy in having passed unusually close to the

Sun. At the moment of perihelion, it was little more than 0.03 AU from the
center of our star; not quite as close as a true sungrazer but still close
enough to experience tremendous heat. The comet was, to use a term
coined more recently by Professor Sekanina, a “sunskirter.”
Now, normally it would be expected that a comet as large and intrinsically

bright as Seki-Lines would become a truly brilliant object as it passed so
close to the Sun. Indeed, it had been expected to become bright enough to
be visible in broad daylight just 2° from the limb of the Sun. One prediction
suggested a maximum brightness around 10 times that of Venus at her
best, implying that the comet should have been visible with the naked eye
simply by blocking out the Sun with an outstretched hand. However, noth-
ing of the sort happened. No naked-eye sightings were made, and even
attempts to observe the comet telescopically proved unsuccessful. It
seemed as though Seki-Lines had faded out so close to the Sun, yet (hap-
pily) just a couple of days later reappeared low in the twilight fully as lumi-
nous as the forecast for that date had predicted! It was as if the comet
suffered an “inverse flare” at perihelion, only to fully regain its former
luminosity soon thereafter.
The temporary fade at perihelion coincides well with the apparent shutting
down of dust emission as implied by the presence of a “shadow of the
nucleus,” and the suggestion was made that the furious activity just prior
to perihelion released such a thick cloud of dust as to effectively shield the
comet’s nucleus from the Sun’s light and heat for several hours. According
to this hypothesis, this particle cloud was so dense that the comet shut
down activity completely through perihelion passage and did not reacti-
vate until the cloud had sufficiently dispersed to allow sunlight through
once more to the nucleus’ surface.
An alternative suggestion is simply that the heat at perihelion was so fierce

that most of the dust particles released for several hours around that time
evaporated almost as soon as they left the cool environs of the nucleus.
The immediate result of this would have been for the coma to shrink to a
dimension little larger than the nucleus itself (hence the fading of the
comet at perihelion), while a longer term effect would have manifested as
the “missing” tail particles corresponding to a release time near perihelion
passage. Either scenario fits the observations, with the second being
(perhaps) the more credible.
Those Mysterious “Coruscations”!
Something else occasionally associated with comet tails should also be

mentioned at this point, although it is not likely to be a true feature like the
others. On rare occasions, the tail of a comet will seem to fluctuate in
brightness simultaneously over its entire length, reminding the observer
of the fluctuations of an auroral glow. Some old reports even imply a sort
of “auroral” shimmer traversing the tail’s length. One rather detailed
account of this phenomenon was given by the astronomer E. Trouvelot
concerning his observations of the bright Comet Coggia, otherwise known
as the Great Comet of 1874. On the evening of July 21 of that year,
Trouvelot recorded that he
[s]aw the comet’s tail shortening and extending, lightening up and extin-
guishing like the rays of certain auroras. Extended undulations, rapid
vibrations, ran along it in succession from the horizon to its extremity,
giving it the appearance of a fine gauze wavering in a strong breeze. The
pulsations and waves of light were of an unequal duration; some being
rapid, while others lasted a longer time. For over one hour, the comet’s
tail kindled and extinguished more than one hundred times; the extinc-
tion being sometimes so complete that it was impossible to see any trace
of the comet; while sometimes it became so bright that, in spite of the
light of the moon, it could be distinguished easily in all its contours, even
to its very extremity.
At the time of Trouvelot’s observation, the head of this comet was below
the horizon and the tail alone was visible like a long ray extending to
around 70° across the sky.
In his account of this phenomenon, Trouvelot mentions that similar reports

had been made by earlier astronomers. Father J. Cysat, for instance, recorded
that he had witnessed “undulations” in the tail of the Great Comet of 1618 “as
if it was agitated by the wind,” and Hevelius noted similar effects in the tails
of the comets of 1652 and 1661 (the latter now known to have been a return
of Ikeya-Zhang). Likewise A. Pingre reported undulations resembling auroral
fluctuations along the extensive tail of Messier’s Comet of 1769, while F.
Winnecke noted that the rays within the tail of Comet Donati of 1858
appeared to spread and contract like the rays of an aurora.
These effects are referred to as coruscations in the tail, and their mention
is more frequent in older reports than in contemporary ones. Could this be
128 Chapter 11
because modern observers don’t believe what their eyes tell them that
they are seeing?
The problem is that if these accounts are taken at face value as being intrin-
sic to the tail, they would need to involve the transmission of some effect
along the tail at velocities exceeding that of light itself. Accordingly, they
have been explained away as some form of effect within Earth’s atmos-
phere, not unlike the twinkling of stars. Nevertheless, the apparent fluctua-
tion of a 70°-long tail surely involves something quite different from the
scintillation of a stellar point!
Two comets of relatively recent history that seemed to display “auroral-

like” fluctuations were the bright sungrazers Ikeya-Seki (1965) and Lovejoy
(2011). Although this author saw the first of these comets, the “auroral”
effect was not noticed, although the person who did mention it was
entirely trustworthy and cannot be doubted. In the latter instance, the
author did personally witness the occurrence. The phenomenon took the
form of a very conspicuous and simultaneous fluctuation throughout the
entire length of the tail and was observed on a very clear morning follow-
ing the comet’s re-emergence as a spectacular naked-eye object in the
southern morning skies. This could not have been an optical illusion but it
could not be easily explained as an atmospheric effect either, although
“common sense” indicates that this is what it must have been. Any such
fluctuation deserves mention in an observation report, and it might also
be worthwhile noting if the stars close to the tail appeared any different at
that time. In the Lovejoy instance, nothing remarkable was noticed in the
appearance of stars near the comet’s tail.
Although probably not strictly representative of these reported tail fluc-

tuations, a very strange observation was once reported by no less an expe-
rienced comet observer as G. E. D. Alcock. This astronomer reported
telescopically observing the relatively rapid motion, in real time, of a lumi-
nous knot of material along the plasma tail of Comet Encke. While not sig-
nifying the extreme accelerations that a literal interpretation of coruscations
would require, if the phenomenon seen by Alcock was truly indigenous to
Encke and not some peculiar trick of Earth’s atmosphere (which one would
be tempted to suggest) it would still require an unusually large
acceleration.
Looking For an Anti-Tail
Some comets display a feature known as an “anti-tail,” or “beard.” Mention

has already been made of these features (an example of which is shown
in Fig. 4.3), where we stated that they are normally projection effects
resulting from a more or less edge-on perspective of the broad sheet of
comparatively massive particles emitted by the nucleus and spread out
along the comet’s orbit. In effect, the anti-tail is an extreme view of a Type
III dust tail.
The ideal situation for observing the anti-tail effect is when Earth crosses
the plane of a comet’s orbit. The orbital planes of Earth and comet cross at
the points known as the nodes, at the ascending node (when the comet
crosses the ecliptic plane on its northward trek) and at the descending
node, when it crosses the ecliptic plane while traveling south. One of the
published orbital elements of a new or returning comet is the longitude of
the ascending node and is normally given by the upper-case Greek letter Ω
(capital omega). This represents the angle from the first point of Aries to
the ascending node measured in the plane of the ecliptic.
To find the approximate date at which Earth reaches the nodal point, mark off
from the March equinox the number of days equal to the longitude of the
ascending node. The descending node differs from the ascending by 180°.
The dates when Earth reaches either nodal point are times when we are in the
plane of the comet’s orbit and signify when, other things being equal, we
have the best chance of seeing an anti-tail. Some of “things” that are required
to “be equal” include the position of the comet relative to its perihelion pas-
sage (anti-tails are normally seen after perihelion, when the heavy and slow-
moving dust particles released have had time to spread some distance from
its nucleus) and the quantity of coarse particles released by the comet. An
anti-tail will normally be visible for at least several days either side of the
orbital crossing and even, if the observational geometry is favorable, for over
a month from that time. But most often the time of actual crossing gives the
best view and reveals the anti-tail at its brightest as a sharp spike directly
opposite the intensified and narrowed Type II dust tail.
What may have been the most striking example of an anti-tail ever
recorded was displayed by Comet Arend-Roland, the great comet of April
130 Chapter 11
1957. The anti-tail of this comet started showing up around April 22 and
persisted until May 2, but was at its best on April 25. On that date, the
main dust tail extended to 30° and the anti-tail to 15 as observed with the
naked eye. The latter narrowed down to a long, straight spike not unlike
the tusk of a narwhal.
Rounded to the nearest whole number, the longitude of the ascending

node of Arend-Roland is 216°. This means that Earth was in the plane of its
orbit at the ascending node around October 23. Passing perihelion on April
8, the comet had not been discovered on that date in 1956 and was long
past perihelion and faint on that date in 1957. However, the longitude of
the descending node (216–180) is 36, and counting 36 days from the March
equinox (taken as March 21) gives April 26, essentially when the anti-tail
was at its best display.
A second example of a remarkable anti-tail was provided by Comet Cernis-

Petrauskas. This small comet, visible in 1980, displayed only a minimal
“normal” visual tail, yet photographs obtained from August 15 to
September 7 revealed a long spike of an anti-tail. The longitude of this
comet’s ascending node was 161°, approximately indicating that Earth
would have been in its orbital plane in late August. Because of approxima-
tions, the actual crossing was September 2, but still in the midst of the
anti-tail observations.
A handful of comets have displayed a different type of anti-tail. Unlike the

more familiar ones, these are not tricks of perspective but instances of
material actually present on the sunward side of a comet’s head. This mate-
rial is typically more diffuse than the ones displayed by the likes of Arend-
Roland and Cernis-Petrauskas (more prone to take on the appearance of a
faint sheath of light rather than that of a narrow spike) and can appear
together with the wide view of a more or less face-on Type II dust tail.
Examples of these were displayed by comets Seki-Lines in 1962 and
McNaught in 2007. These are rare, but very dusty comets should be
watched for their possible presence.
Recording and Reporting Your Observations 131
CHAPTER 12
RECORDING AND REPORTING YOUR OBSERVATIONS
A casual observer may be satisfied simply to enjoy the spectacle of the

occasional bright comet that comes or way, but anyone seriously inter-
ested in observing these objects will wish to do much more than this. To
serve as useful scientific data, your observations need to be properly
recorded and reported.
The most useful observations are the magnitude estimates of the coma. The
brightness of a comet is principally determined by its level of activity in the
sense of the productivity of its nucleus in terms of the amount of gas and
dust released by its sublimating ices. It will readily be appreciated that this
is not necessarily directly related to the actual size of the nucleus per se, but
more specifically to the amount of nucleus surface exhibiting exposed ice
from which sublimation occurs. A very large nucleus that is 99 % covered by
a non-volatile crust, leaving exposed ices on just 1 % of its surface, will
develop a fainter coma than a small nucleus that has 100 % of its nucleus
surface consisting of exposed ice. Observations of the coma brightness by
visual means coupled with non-visual observations of the solid nucleus
(sometimes including direct radar observations) have proven very useful in
determining the “productivity” of several comets in recent decades.
Moreover, it is only through the collection and analysis of quantities of

brightness data (much of its obtained visually) that the evolution of the activ-
ity of different comets with respect to their changes in solar distance can be
described and possibly explained. Moreover, it is only by careful monitoring
that the brightness fluctuations exhibited by some comets can be adequately
examined and hypotheses as to the nature of such events properly tested.
Brightness estimates are most useful if accompanied by coma diameter

estimates as well as by estimates of the degree of condensation of the
coma, as this value (other things being equal) gives an idea of the level of
activity being exhibited by the comet.

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_12
132 Chapter 12
Brightness estimates and estimates of coma diameters and degree of con-

densation should be determined according to the methods described ear-
lier. Most comet databases will require that the method used for making
the magnitude estimate be noted. This is normally required in the form of
a letter code. For example, estimates sent to the International Comet
Quarterly database require that the different methods be designated with
the letters “S” (Sidgewick or In-Out Method), “M” (Morris or Somewhat
out—Out Method), “B” (Bobrovnikoff or Out-Out Method), “E” (Beyer or
Extra-focal Method) and “I” (In-focus Method). Of these, the S method and
M methods are recommended (the latter for comets showing a pro-
nounced central condensation), the B method may be used for very com-
pact objects but the E and I methods are best left alone.
Observing forms leave room for descriptive notes concerning any features
within the coma or tail which the observer feels should be specially noted.
Such features might include split nuclei, jets and envelopes within the
coma and disconnection events, regions of turbulence or rays within the
plasma tail and synchron bands or striae within the dust tail.
Perhaps you might feel that a mere verbal description is not enough.
Maybe a drawing of the features will give a better idea of what you have
observed. Fortunately, you do not need to be an artist to make useful
drawings. Some observers prefer to draw the comet in negative against a
white background, whereas others favor the positive approach. This is
largely a matter of choice, but either way, a soft pencil is useful and
“smudging” the drawing to duplicate the soft and diffuse appearance of a
comet can yield an adequately realistic representation of the object. The
aim is not to give a pretty picture, as to faithfully depict the features
observed. If the features being depicted are vague and subtle (as most
often they will be) try to make them appear as such in your drawing. When
you are satisfied that you have depicted the observed features to your
satisfaction, your drawing should be included separately with your report-
form and written notes.
Many comet observers like to forward their observations to more than one
archive. As different archives frequently have different requirements con-
cerning format, this will probably involve duplication your data several
times in different formats.
Recording and Reporting Your Observations 133
The recently formed COBE cometary database is rapidly moving toward

being the largest repository for international comet observations. It is
found online at http://www.cobs.si/.
Other Web-pages of organizations interested in receiving visual observa-

tions of comets include tat of the Comet Section of the British Astronomical
Association, which is found at www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~jds/.
This is also a mine of information concerning the latest cometary discover-

ies and other up-to-the-minute developments in the field, as well as pro-
viding links to further pages on the Worldwide Web where visual
observational data is welcomed. One especially important link is to
Heavens Above at http://www.heavens-above.com/, where current data
concerning comets, and much else besides, is available.
Indeed, with the advent of the Internet, the international comet-observing

community has access to very recent information, as well as ease of interac-
tion with other observers all over the planet, to an extent that was not even
science fiction just a couple of decades ago. Rather than having detracted
from the usefulness of visual observing, these hi-tech breakthroughs of
recent times have instead given old fashioned observing at the eyepiece a
new lease of life!
From this general overview of comets and cometary phenomena, we can

see that visual observations of these objects still have an important role to
play in astronomy. Now let us have a look at several periodic comets, set to
return during the decade from 2017 until 2027, which are expected to be
sufficiently bright and well placed to be of interest to the visual observer.
PART III
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF COMET OBSERVING

Relatively Bright Comets Predicted to Return from 2016 to 2027 137
CHAPTER 13
RELATIVELY BRIGHT COMETS PREDICTED TO RETURN

FROM 2016 TO 2027
Comets, by their very nature, tend to be quite unpredictable. Not only are
we unaware when the next long-period object will be discovered, but even
well-known periodic objects can at times behave in an uncharacteristic
manner and confound all our predictions.
There is no way of knowing what cometary activity awaits the visual

observer in the 2017 or, indeed, during any other time period. This must be
born in mind when considering the following list. The list is not intended to
be comprehensive, even for known short-period comets. The returns of a
small number of fairly bright objects have been omitted because they are
predicted to be unfavorably placed at the time of their maximum expected
brightness. The objects included are those which, other things being equal,
should combine relative brightness (brighter than about magnitude 10)
with favorable placement in the sky. Some of them are also noted for hav-
ing displayed peculiar behavior in the past and will therefore be of special
interest for observers to monitor.
The returns of 2P/Encke during the period in question have been included,
despite some early doubt as to whether to include this comet. There are no
really favorable apparitions of this object during the period covered here, but
it was finally decided that, for its historical value alone, it should be included.
The following orbital elements (from K. Kinoshita and S. Nakano) and eph-
emerides are provided to give an overview of the observing circumstances
around the times of predicted maximum brightness. The predicted posi-
tions are given for zero hours universal time on the given dates. Individual
observers can compute more accurate ephemerides better suited to their
own observing circumstances as they see fit. Moreover, it is expected that

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_13
138 Chapter 13
the orbits themselves will be refined in due course, especially as the

comets in question are recovered in large telescopes in advance of their
perihelion dates.
The predicted magnitudes are also, of course, to be taken with some

reserve. Although based upon what are considered reliable data, comets
are (as we already warned) not the most predictable objects, and even the
best data can also be subject to errors, especially concerning the rate at
which brightness changes with respect to distance from the Sun. At best,
the magnitude predictions should be considered as guides rather than as
exact forecasts.
Charts are provided for each of the apparitions included here. These charts
were compiled using Version 3.10 of the Chartes Du Ciel by Patrick
Chevalley (2002–2014) and are given to assist observers in their prepara-
tions for the listed comets.
45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova
This comet was discovered by Minora Honda in Japan on December 3,

1948, and independently by Ludmilla Pajdusakova (Czechoslovakia) on
December 6 and Antonin Mrkos, also in Czechoslovakia, the following day.
The comet has been observed on every subsequent return excepting that
of 1959.
The return of 2016/2017 is an exceptionally favorable one with the comet

making a close approach to Earth in February 2017.
In common with several other short-period comets of small perihelion

distance, 45P activates rather quickly at small solar distances and is essen-
tially inactive at distances beyond about 1.5 AU. Consequently, at the time
of its close approaches to Earth, its activity has waned considerably from
that close to perihelion, and the comet is typically very diffuse and not very
strongly condensed. Observation with binoculars, having a wide field, is
likely to give the best results at that time.
Date RA Dec r Δ Mag. El.

12/15/16 20 h7.9 m −22° 48’ 0.6317 1.0454 10.1 36.1°
12/25/16 20 h40.8 m −20° 39’ 0.5487 0.8430 8.4 33.9°
01/04/17 21 h04.9 m −18° 03’ 0.5388 0.6267 7.6 29.8°
01/14/17 21 h11.3 m −15° 11’ 0.6070 0.4291 7.8 21.9°
02/02/17 20 h00.6 m −02° 32’ 0.8476 0.1493 8.4 20.9°
02/03/17 19 h49.8 m −00° 49’ 0.8618 0.1383 8.4 24.6°
02/04/17 19 h37.3 m 01° 11’ 0.8760 0.1278 8.4 28.9°
02/05/17 19 h22.6 m 03° 31’ 0.8903 0.1180 8.4 33.8°
02/06/17 19 h05.5 m 06° 12’ 0.9046 0.1091 8.3 39.5°
02/07/17 18 h45.4 m 09° 16’ 0.9190 0.1011 8.3 46.1°
02/08/17 18 h21.8 m 12° 43’ 0.9333 0.0944 8.3 53.5°
02/09/17 17 h54.3 m 16° 27’ 0.9477 0.0892 8.3 61.8°
02/10/17 17 h22.9 m 20° 17’ 0.9621 0.0857 8.3 70.8°
02/11/17 16 h48.1 m 23° 56’ 0.9764 0.0841 8.4 80.4°
02/12/17 16 h10.9 m 27° 07’ 0.9908 0.0846 8.6 90.0°
02/13/17 15 h33.1 m 29° 34’ 1.0052 0.0871 8.7 99.4°
2/14/17 14 h56.6 m 31° 13’ 1.0196 0.0914 9.0 108.1°
2/15/17 14 h23.1 m 32° 08’ 1.0339 0.0973 9.2 115.9°
2/16/17 13 h53.3 m 32° 29’ 1.0482 0.1046 9.5 122.8°
2/17/17 13 h27.5 m 32° 25’ 1.0626 0.1129 9.8 128.8°
2/18/17 13 h05.3 m 32° 06’ 1.0768 0.1222 10.1 134.0°
2/19/17 12 h46.5 m 31° 38’ 1.0911 0.1322 10.4 138.6°
2/20/17 12 h30.5 m 31° 05’ 1.1054 0.1427 10.6 142.5°
T = 2016 Dec. 31.18721
q = 0.5325583
e = 0.8239191
ω = 326.26317
Ω = 89.00560
i = 4.24950
P = 5.26 years
140 Chapter 13
2P/Encke
Comet Encke was the second comet (after 1P/Halley) shown to be follow-
ing a periodic elliptical orbit and to have its next return to perihelion suc-
cessfully predicted.
The comet was discovered by Pierre Mechain in 1786 when it was described
as a diffuse object with a bright central core. It disappeared before an accu-
rate orbit could be calculated. Then, in 1795, a comet was discovered by
Caroline Herschel but again faded from view before a sufficiently accurate
orbit could be computed.
The comet was again picked up by several observers in 1805, when it dis-
played a tail some 3° in length. One of the discoverers at that apparition
was the famed comet discoverer Jean Pons, and it was Pons who once
again discovered the comet in 1818.
The year following the 1818 recovery, German mathematician J. F. Encke
found that the recorded observations of the comets of 1786, 1795, 1805
and 1818 could be linked if they all related to a single comet returning with
a very short period of just 3.3 years. On the basis of this, he predicted that
the comet would next appear in 1822.
Unfortunately for most of the world’s astronomers at that time, the comet
at its 1822 return strongly favored the Southern Hemisphere, and early
northern searches (when the comet was still faint) failed to find it.
Nevertheless, it was eventually recovered, on June 2, by C. Rumker at the
Parramatta Observatory in New South Wales and observed by a small num-
ber of southern astronomers. Following its successful recovery, the comet
was named in Encke’s honor, although Encke himself preferred to refer to it
as “Pons’ Comet.”
Throughout the nineteenth century, Comet Encke was regularly observed

without optical aid, but naked-eye sightings of this object became rare
during the twentieth century. There do not appear to have been any obser-
vations since the very favorable return of 1980. Nevertheless, the lack of
naked-eye sightings may have more to do with the changing axis of rota-
tion of the nucleus (no longer bringing potentially very active regions into
sunlight close to perihelion) than to the approaching dormancy of the
142 Chapter 13
comet, as there has been no overall decrease in brightness during recent

decades. The shape of the comet’s light curve has, however, altered (as
might be expected if the nucleus’ axis of rotation is constantly changing),
with the comet being somewhat brighter following perihelion than it was
a few decades ago. At that time, the comet was clearly fainter, intrinsically,
after perihelion than it was prior to perihelion.
When it first becomes visible in small instruments, the comet appears faint
and diffuse, with a low surface brightness, but becomes very small and
condensed closer to perihelion. A thin plasma tail typically becomes briefly
visible very close to perihelion. The presence of this tail is usually reported
just before the comet is lost in twilight.
During 2017, the comet will be best seen in the evening sky for northern
observers prior to perihelion and in the morning sky for southern observ-
ers as it retreats from the Sun.

02/11/17 23 h52.0 m 07° 20’ 0.7358 1.1456 9.8 39.5°
02/16/17 23 h59.3 m 07° 37’ 0.6439 1.0685 8.8 36.2°
02/21/17 00 h05.6 m 07° 33’ 0.5515 0.9788 7.6 32.5°
02/26/17 21 h11.3 m 06° 46’ 0.4626 0.8774 6.2 27.9°
03/23/17 22 h39.8 m −16° 02’ 0.4766 0.7699 6.1 27.7°
03/28/17 22 h33.6 m −17° 30’ 0.5665 0.8486 7.4 34.5°
04/02/17 22 h32.5 m −18° 04’ 0.6590 0.9210 8.6 39.9°
04/07/17 22 h34.0 m −18° 11’ 0.7506 0.9841 9.6 44.4°
04/12/17 22 h36.8 m −18° 05’ 0.8401 1.0373 10.4 48.6°
T = 2017 March 10.09133
q = 0.3358944
e = 0.8483355
ω = 186.56286
Ω = 334.56008
i = 11.77821
P = 3.30 years
144 Chapter 13
41P/Tuttle-Giacobini-Kresak
On April 24, 1951, L. Kresak (Czechoslovakia) discovered a diffuse 10th

magnitude comet that proved to be a return of one discovered by H. Tuttle
on May 3, 1858, and M. Giacobini on June 1, 1907. Observations at these
earlier returns were not sufficiently extensive for an accurate short-period
orbit to be calculated, although some astronomers suspected that these
objects were actually separate returns of the one body. The comet made a
favorable return in 1962 but was missed in 1967.
Thus far, the comet had not displayed any unusual behavior. That was to
change radically at its next return in 1973! Although brightness predic-
tions, based on the comet’s development during earlier apparitions, sug-
gested a maximum magnitude of only 13, the comet suddenly brightened
to naked-eye visibility at fourth magnitude! Two such massive outbursts
occurred in quick succession at the 1973 return.
The comet’s next (and rather unfavorable) return in 1978 witnessed no

unusual activity, but more outbursts (though ones of lesser magnitude)
occurred during the returns of 1995 and 2001. It was poorly placed and
passed unobserved during its most recent return in 2011.
During 2017, the comet passes unusually close to Earth, and even if there
are no outbursts, it should be visible in field glasses. If there is a modest
outburst similar to the ones observed in 2001, the comet will become visi-
ble with the naked eye. On the other hand, if it were to experience some-
thing similar to the outbursts of 1973, it would reach negative magnitudes!
Outbursts of 1973-type amplitude are very unlikely, but more modest ones
(although far from guaranteed) are quite possible in the light of the com-
et’s behavior in recent decades, and a careful watch on this object might
yield some interesting observations.

3/1/17 09 h52.3 m 28° 04’ 1.1901 0.2149 9.6 155.8°
3/6/17 10 h01.8 m 33° 33’ 1.1603 0.1923 9.0 148.5°
3/11/17 10 h16.7 m 39° 51’ 1.1332 0.1735 8.5 140.8°
3/16/17 10 h40.1 m 46° 46’ 1.1091 0.1588 8.1 133.0°
3/21/17 11 h17.2 m 53° 48’ 1.0885 0.1482 7.7 125.3°
3/26/17 12 h15.4 m 59° 53’ 1.0716 0.1421 7.5 118.0°
3/31/17 13 h37.4 m 63° 24’ 1.0586 0.1402 7.3 111.6°
4/5/17 15 h07.4 m 63° 05’ 1.0499 0.1424 7.2 106.6°
4/10/17 16 h20.2 m 59° 32’ 1.0456 0.1481 7.3 103.2°
4/15/17 17 h09.6 m 54° 24’ 1.0457 0.1567 7.4 101.5°
4/20/17 17 h41.7 m 48° 55’ 1.0502 0.1675 7.6 101.3°
4/25/17 18 h02.8 m 43° 38’ 1.0592 0.1797 7.8 102.4°
4/30/17 18 h16.9 m 38° 44’ 1.0724 0.1931 8.1 104.6°
5/5/17 18 h26.3 m 34° 13’ 1.0895 0.2072 8.5 107.7°
5/10/17 18 h32.2 m 30° 04’ 1.1103 0.2220 8.8 111.5°
5/15/17 18 h35.5’ 26° 11’ 1.1345 0.2373 9.2 115.8°
5/20/17 18 h36.8 m 22° 30’ 1.1618 0.2535 9.7 120.7°
5/25/17 18 h36.5 m 18° 59’ 1.1918 0.2706 10.1 125.9°
5/30/17 18 h34.9 m 15° 34’ 1.2241 0.2893 10.6 131.3°
T = 2017 April 12.36629
q = 1.0450492
e = 0.6612067
ω = 62.16054
Ω = 141.06992
i = 9.22784
P = 5.42 years
146 Chapter 13
21P/Giacobini-Zinner
This comet is best known in its role as the parent object of the Draconid
(Giacobinid) meteor storms of last century, as well as being of historical
interest as the first comet visited by a space probe, when the International
Cometary Explorer (ICE) passed through its ion tail in 1985. On favorable
returns it has also become one of the brighter objects of short period.
Discovery occurred on December 20, 1900, when M. Giacobini of the Nice

Observatory found it at about magnitude 10.5. Because the comet faded
quite rapidly, the arc of observation did not permit the computation of a
very accurate orbit, although it was determined that the comet moved in a
short-period ellipse.
The next predicted return in 1907 was unfavorable, and no observations

were possible. The return predicted for 1914 was also expected to be unfa-
vorable; however, a comet discovered by E. Zinner at Bamberg on October
23, 1913, proved to be none other than Giacobini’s comet of 1900. Because
of errors in the orbital calculations, it arrived at perihelion 6 months earlier
than had been predicted and what had been anticipated as a poor return
actually turned out to be quite favorable.
The 2018 return is a favorable one that should bring the comet into the
range of modest binoculars. Moreover, variations in brightness, including
outbursts of between 0.5 and 1.0 magnitudes, have been noted at some
earlier apparitions. During the return of 1946, under conditions rather
similar to those of 2018, an outburst of at least one magnitude brought
the comet’s brightness to the limit of naked-eye visibility at magnitude
6.0. A careful watch should be maintained in case similar behavior takes
place in 2018.
148 Chapter 13

7/1/18 21 h28.3 m 50° 08’ 1.4089 0.8491 10.8 97.7°
7/11/18 21 h58.6 m 55° 49’ 1.3230 0.7617 10.0 95.1°
7/21/18 22 h42.5 m 61° 06’ 1.2424 0.6791 9.3 92.1°
7/26/18 23 h12.7 m 63° 24’ 1.2048 0.6392 8.9 90.5°
8/5/18 00 h36.8 m 66° 24’ 1.1366 0.5626 8.2 87.3°
8/15/18 02 h27.7 m 65° 08’ 1.0805 0.4924 7.5 84.2°
8/25/18 04 h08.9 m 57° 28’ 1.0396 0.4345 7.0 81.5°
9/4/18 05 h18.7 m 43° 50’ 1.0169 0.3982 6.6 79.8°
9/14/18 06 h04.3 m 26° 52’ 1.0141 0.3927 6.6 80.0°
9/24/18 06 h35.4 m 10° 11’ 1.0316 0.4195 6.9 81.9°
10/4/18 06 h57.4 m 03° 48’ 1.0679 0.4706 7.4 85.0°
10/14/18 07 h12.7 m −14° 40’ 1.1203 0.5350 8.0 88.6°
10/24/18 07 h22.0 m −22° 57’ 1.1856 0.6042 8.7 92.4°
11/3/18 07 h25.6 m −29° 16’ 1.2606 0.6736 9.4 96.5°
10/14/18 07 h23.6 m −33° 58’ 1.3426 0.7409 10.1 100.8°
10/24/18 07 h16.3 m −37° 15’ 1.4295 0.8065 10.7 105.2°
T = 2018 Sept. 10.33555
q = 1.0127734
e = 0.7104869
ω = 326.26317
Ω = 89.00560
i = 31.99756
P = 6.54 years
150 Chapter 13
38P/Stephan-Oterma
This comet was actually discovered by J. Coggia on January 22, 1867, soon
after he had begun employment as an 18-year-old assistant at Marseilles
Observatory. Although later to become well known for several comet dis-
coveries (most notably the Great Comet of 1874), Coggia was at the time
still unknown to the wider astronomical community, and the credit for the
discovery was taken by observatory director E. Stephan, who was the first
to obtain an accurate position for the comet on January 25.
Although an elliptical orbit was determined for this object, the period was
rather uncertain, and it passed by unseen at the next return of 1905.
Nevertheless, it was rediscovered as an apparently new object by L.
Oterma (Finland) on November 6, 1942. Computation of the orbit of Comet
Oterma subsequently allowed it to be identified with the “lost” Comet
Stephan. The comet returned in 1980, when it was widely observed both
visually and photographically.
The brightness of Comet Stephan-Oterma appears to be very sensitive to

its distance from the Sun. The pre-perihelic brightening phase seems to be
very steep, with the fading phase following perihelion being somewhat
slower, though still unusually rapid.

10/1/18 05 h57.4 m 12° 07’ 1.6683 1.2014 10.5 98.0°
10/11/18 06 h22.1 m 13° 58’ 1.6344 1.1063 10.1 101.8°
10/21/18 06 h46.5 m 16° 04’ 1.6095 1.0207 9.7 105.9°
11/5/18 07 h21.4 m 19° 51’ 1.5901 0.9131 9.3 113.1°
11/15/18 07 h42.8 m 22° 54’ 1.5896 0.8564 9.2 118.7°
11/25/18 08 h01.7 m 26° 21’ 1.5992 0.8129 9.2 125.1°
12/5/18 08 h17.4’ 30° 11’ 1.6185 0.7839 9.2 132.0°
12/10/18 08 h23.7 m 32° 12’ 1.6317 0.7754 9.2 135.6°
12/20/18 08 h33.1 m 36° 14’ 1.6647 0.7714 9.3 142.8°
12/30/18 08 h37.8 m 40° 01’ 1.7061 0.7858 9.5 149.1°
T = 2018 Nov. 10.47247
q = 1.5885869
e = 0.8593418
ω = 359.58146
Ω = 77.99964
i = 18.35302
P = 37.96 years
152 Chapter 13
46P/Wirtanen
When this comet was discovered by C. A. Wirtanen (Lick Observatory) on

January 15, 1948, it had a perihelion distance of 1.63 AU, a period of
6.71 years and a magnitude of 16. The comet was observed during its
returns of 1954, 1961 and 1967, but at none of these times became any
brighter than magnitude 15. However, during April 1972, the comet passed
just 0.28 AU from Jupiter, resulting in a decrease in its perihelion distance
to 1.26 AU and a reduction in its orbital period to 5.87 years. Moreover, in
1984, a second close passage of Jupiter reduced the perihelion distance
still further—to 1.08 AU—and the comet’s period to 5.5 years. Returning to
perihelion on this new orbit in 1986, the comet became a visually observ-
able object or the first time, reaching a maximum magnitude of around 8.5.
Both the perihelion distance and period have decreased a little further and
the new orbit allows close approaches to Earth to be possible. During the
2018 return, this possibility will be realized with the comet passing within
0.08 AU of Earth in the middle of December. For the first time, the comet is
expected to become a naked-eye object and will be excellently placed for
observation.

9/1/18 01 h32.4 m −18° 14’ 1.6687 0.7815 10.4 137.1°
9/11/18 01 h41.0 m −20° 33’ 1.5837 0.6672 9.8 141.4°
9/21/18 01 h48.2 m −23° 16’ 1.4999 0.5668 9.2 143.9°
10/1/18 01 h53.4 m −26° 14’ 1.4184 0.4798 8.6 144.2°
10/11/18 01 h56.5 m −29° 08’ 1.3403 0.4046 8.0 141.9°
10/21/18 01 h57.9 m −31° 34’ 1.2673 0.3391 7.4 137.7°
10/31/18 01 h58.9 m −32° 59’ 1.2013 0.2805 6.7 132.8°
11/10/18 02 h01.8 m −32° 42’ 1.1448 0.2261 6.1 128.4°
11/20/18 02 h10.0 m −29° 37’ 1.1002 0.1743 5.3 126.2°
11/30/18 02 h29.1 m −21° 11’ 1.0700 0.1257 4.5 129.1°
12/10/18 03 h10.0 m −00° 48’ 1.0561 0.0875 3.6 143.1°
12/11/18 03 h16.1 m 02° 16’ 1.0557 0.0849 3.6 145.4°
12/12/18 03 h22.6’ 05° 31’ 1.0554 0.0827 3.5 147.7°
12/13/18 03 h29.5 m 08° 56’ 1.0554 0.0808 3.5 150.1°
12/14/18 03 h36.9 m 12° 30’ 1.0554 0.0794 3.4 152.5°
12/15/18 03 h44.8 m 16° 10’ 1.0557 0.0784 3.4 154.7°
12/16/18 03 h53.3 m 19° 54’ 1.0562 0.0778 3.4 156.7°
12/17/18 04 h02.3 m 23° 38’ 1.0568 0.0778 3.4 158.3°
12/18/18 04 h11.9 m 27° 19’ 1.0576 0.0782 3.4 159.4°
12/19/18 04 h22.1’ 30° 54’ 1.0585 0.0790 3.4 159.9°
12/20/18 04 h32.8 m 34° 20’ 1.0596 0.0803 3.5 159.9°
12/30/18 06 h36.5 m 55° 40’ 1.0802 0.1128 4.3 147.5°
1/9/19 08 h13.5 m 59° 36’ 1.1165 0.1644 5.3 141.4°
1/19/19 09 h00.7 m 58° 21’ 1.1662 0.2245 6.1 140.7°
1/29/19 09 h20.6 m 55° 50’ 1.2268 0.2914 6.9 141.7°
2/8/19 09 h28.9 m 52° 50’ 1.2959 0.3662 7.6 142.4°
2/18/19 091 h33.4 m 49° 34’ 1.3711 0.4507 8.3 141.8°
2/28/19 09 h37.5 m 46° 10’ 1.4508 0.5465 9.0 139.7°
3/10/19 09 h42.7 m 42° 45’ 1.5334 0.6547 9.6 136.1°
3/20/19 02 h29.1 m 39° 26’ 1.6177 0.7757 10.2 131.5°
3/30/19 09 h57.5 m 36° 15’ 1.7031 0.9094 10.8 126.4°
T = 2018 Dec. 12.99202
q = 1.0553605
e = 0.6588083
ω = 356.3528
Ω = 82.15979
i = 11.74609
P = 5.44 years
154 Chapter 13
2P/Encke
The 2020 return of this famous comet has some similarities with the first
predicted return back in 1822. The perihelion date will be 1 month later
this time around, but the circumstances of the comet’s visibility, with the
comet most readily visible following perihelion in the southern hemi-
sphere and located in the evening sky, will be the same.

07/01/20 08 h03.9 m 17° 44’ 0.3645 1.0519 5.0 20.2°
07/06/20 08 h39.4 m 13° 17’ 0.4313 0.9245 5.9 25.1°
07/11/20 09 h14.0 m 08° 19’ 0.5166 0.8157 6.8 30.3°
07/16/20 09 h50.2 m 02° 45’ 0.6081 0.7296 7.6 36.3°
07/21/20 10 h29.4 m −03° 24’ 0.7003 0.6678 8.3 43.3°
07/26/20 11 h12.3 m −09° 51’ 0.7910 0.6318 9.0 51.1°
07/31/20 11 h58.1 m −16° 04’ 0.8791 0.6225 9.6 59.3°
T = 2020 June 25.84218
q = 0.3367194
e = 0.79980
ω = 186.56165
Ω = 334.55249
i = 11.76470
P = 3.30 years
156 Chapter 13
88P/Howell
This comet was discovered by Ellen Howell on photographic plates secured

with the 46-cm Palomar Schmidt telescope on August 29 and 30, 1981. At
the time of discovery, its brightness was estimated as magnitude 15.
The comet has been observed at every return since its discovery and has
been visually observed at each of these returns with the exception of that
of 1993. Visually, the comet typically appears very diffuse and is most read-
ily observed using a low-power eyepiece with a wide field or with large
tripod-mounted binoculars.

5/1/20 12 h56.7 m −01° 36’ 2.0355 1.0876 9.9 152.6°
5/11/20 12 h47.6 m −01° 15’ 1.9691 1.0801 9.7 140.8°
5/21/20 12 h41.5 m −01° 16’ 1.9033 1.0891 9.6 129.8°
5/31/20 12 h39.0 m −01° 42’ 1.8384 1.1096 9.4 119.9°
6/10/20 12 h40.5 m −02° 33’ 1.7749 1.1370 9.3 111.0°
6/20/20 12 h45.8 m −03° 47’ 1.7132 1.1674 9.2 103.1°
6/30/20 12 h54.8 m −05° 22’ 1.6538 1.1980 9.1 96.3°
7/10/20 13 h07.1 m −07° 15’ 1.5975 1.2270 9.0 90.3°
7/20/20 13 h22.6 m −09° 24’ 1.5450 1.2533 8.9 85.1°
7/30/20 13 h41.3 m −11° 45’ 1.4971 1.2765 8.8 80.7°
8/9/20 14 h02.9 m −14° 15’ 1.4546 1.2971 8.7 76.9°
8/19/20 14 h27.5 m −16° 49’ 1.4185 1.3159 8.6 73.8°
8/29/20 14 h55.1’ −19° 21’ 1.3896 1.3342 8.5 71.2°
9/8/20 15 h25.8 m −21° 45’ 1.3687 1.3539 8.5 69.1°
9/18/20 15 h59.3 m −23° 53’ 1.3565 1.3767 8.5 67.4°
9/28/20 16 h35.4 m −25° 36’ 1.3532 1.4048 8.5 66.0°
10/8/20 17 h13.6 m −26° 46’ 1.3590 1.4401 8.6 64.8°
10/18/20 17 h53.1 m −27° 18’ 1.3738 1.4844 8.7 63.7°
10/28/20 18 h33.0 m −27° 09’ 1.3970 1.5389 8.8 62.7°
11/7/20 19 h12.3 m −26° 19’ 1.4280 1.6047 9.0 61.5°
11/17/20 19 h50.2 m −24° 54’ 1.4660 1.6819 9.3 60.1°
11/27/20 20 h26.2 m −22° 59’ 1.5101 1.7703 9.5 58.5°
12/07/20 20 h59.9 m −20° 42’ 1.5594 1.8692 9.8 56.5°
12/17/20 21 h31.4’ −18° 09’ 1.6131 1.9775 10.1 54.2°
12/27/20 22 h00.8 m −15° 27’ 1.6703 2.0937 10.4 51.6°
T = 2020 Sept. 26.58968
q = 1.3531135
e = 0.56433422
ω = 235.91237
Ω = 56.68241
i = 4.38341
P = 5.47 years
158 Chapter 13
15P/Finlay
This comet was discovered by W. Finlay at the Cape of Good Hope on

September 26, 1886, as a diffuse object of magnitude 11. Initially sus-
pected of being a return of Comet de Vico, seen in 1844, more accurate
computation of its orbit revealed that it was a different object, though one
following an orbit of short period.
In more recent years, backward computation of the comet’s orbit revealed

some close approaches to Earth during the 200 years or thereabouts prior
to its discovery. Assuming that it was intrinsically as bright during these
earlier passages as it was at discovery, it is a little strange that it was not
discovered then, and it has been suggested that the comet passes through
times of relative dormancy. This appeared to be confirmed by the faint
estimates made for this comet during its returns since about 1960, and the
suggestion was voiced that it was probably about to cease activity and
become indistinguishable in appearance from an asteroid.
Nevertheless, at the return of 2008, the comet rapidly and surprisingly

surged in brightness shortly before perihelion and became visible in small
telescopes. That this was not simply an isolated outburst became apparent
when similar behavior occurred at the next perihelion passage in late
December 2014. However, the 2014 return had an extra surprise in store for
observers. Initially fading following its perihelion, the comet suddenly
experienced a strong brightness outburst in mid-January 2015, during
which it reached magnitude 7 and became intrinsically brighter than at any
other observed apparition.
Given the comet’s past behavior, magnitude predictions for 2021 are nec-
essarily even more uncertain than usual, but the prediction here is made
on the assumption of similar development to that of 2014, though without
the outburst of 2015. Although there is no reason for thinking that another
outburst of this nature will occur, if one of equal amplitude should happen
at a similar part of the orbit, the comet could become as bright as magni-
tude 7 in early August.
There is also a slight (note emphasis on “slight”!) possibility that a small

secondary comet might accompany Finlay in 2021. Sudden outbursts in
comets not normally noted for this activity are sometimes triggered by a
160 Chapter 13
small section of the nucleus breaking away and exposing fresh internal ices
to the solar heat. If the fragment is large enough, it may return as a sepa-
rate comet traveling relatively close to the main one. We do not know if the
Finlay outburst was caused by a fragment breaking loose or, if it was,
whether the hypothetical fragment was massive enough to have survived
intact, but the possibility of a secondary comet (while remote) remains an
interesting prospect.
Incidentally, there was just one report of a possible split nucleus in 2015,
although the observer himself expressed skepticism as to its reality, citing
the low elevation of the comet at the time and the consequent poor seeing.
His skepticism was apparently justified, as there was no confirmation of the
split, and no further reports of a secondary nucleus were made.
Nevertheless, even if that observation was spurious, an unobserved split is
not necessarily ruled out.

6/1/21 00 h27.6 m −03° 47’ 1.1642 1.1236 10.2 65.8°
6/10/21 01 h08.3 m 01° 20’ 1.1038 1.0947 9.7 63.0°
6/19/21 01 h49.5 m 06° 29’ 1.0540 1.0880 9.2 60.0°
6/28/21 12 h31.0 m 11° 21’ 1.0175 1.1012 8.9 57.3°
7/7/21 03 h12.0 m 15° 40’ 0.9966 1.1309 8.7 55.0°
7/16/21 03 h52.3 m 19° 17’ 0.9926 1.1726 8.8 53.4°
7/25/21 04 h31.3 m 22° 08’ 1.0060 1.2218 9.0 52.5°
8/3/21 05 h08.6 m 24° 14’ 1.0357 1.2740 9.4 52.3°
8/12/21 05 h43.6 m 25° 39’ 1.0797 1.3235 9.9 53.0°
8/21/21 06 h16.1 m 26° 30’ 1.1357 1.3736 10.4 54.3°
8/30/21 06 h45.8 m 26° 54’ 1.2009 1.4155 11.0 56.4°
T = 2021 Jul. 13.54110
q = 0.9919905
e = 0.7170415
ω = 347.82402
Ω = 13.71351
i = 6.79749
P = 6.56 years
162 Chapter 13
6P/d’Arrest
H. d’Arrest discovered this comet at Leipzig on June 28, 1851, as a diffuse

object of about magnitude 10. Over the years, the perihelion distance of
this comet has changed from 1.17 AU at the time of discovery to 1.39 AU in
1943, resulting in relatively wide variations in the comet’s maximum mag-
nitude. Decreasing again after the early 1940s, the perihelion reached a
minimum of 1.16 in 1976 when, fortunately, the comet arrived at perigee
and perihelion on the same day and passed Earth at the closest possible
distance of 0.15 AU, becoming a naked-eye object of magnitude 4.9.
Following the 1976 return, the comet’s perihelion distance has again
increased and in 2021 will be back to what it had been a century ago.
The comet is noted for its rather peculiar light curve; brightening quickly to
a more or less extended plateau.

7/1/21 16 h12.9 m 14° 57’ 1.6192 0.7837 9.6 127.7°
7/11/21 16 h09.7 m 11° 54’ 1.5627 0.7636 9.3 122.1°
7/21/21 16 h10.8 m 07° 55’ 1.5111 0.7517 9.0 116.7°
7/31/21 16 h16.7 m 03° 13’ 1.4652 0.7468 8.7 111.6°
8/10/21 01 h49.5 m −01° 59’ 1.4261 0.7488 8.5 107.1°
8/20/21 16 h43.8 m −07° 29’ 1.3947 0.7577 8.4 103.1°
8/30/21 17 h04.9 m −13° 00’ 1.3719 0.7745 8.3 99.7°
9/9/21 17 h30.9 m −18° 15’ 1.3584 0.8001 8.3 96.8°
9/19/21 18 h01.5 m −22° 55’ 1.3547 0.8355 8.4 94.4°
9/29/21 18 h36.2 m −26° 46’ 1.3608 0.8815 8.5 92.3°
10/9/21 19 h13.9 m −29° 35’ 1.3765 0.9385 8.8 90.5°
10/19/21 19 h53.2 m −31° 15’ 1.4014 1.0067 9.0 88.8°
10/29/21 20 h32.7 m −31° 48’ 1.4347 1.0861 9.4 87.1°
T = 2021 Sept. 17.80596
q = 1.3546106
e = 0.6128118
ω = 178.10307
Ω = 138.93558
i = 19.51225
P = 6.54 years
164 Chapter 13
19P/Borrelly
This comet was discovered by A. Borrelly at the Marseille Observatory in

France on December 28, 1904. At the time of discovery, the comet’s bright-
ness was estimated at magnitude 9–10, and it became sufficiently bright to
be visually observable at each return until 1932, after which a series of
poor apparitions made it a difficult object to observe. A slight reduction in
the orbital period following a close approach to Jupiter in 1972 has, how-
ever, resulted in generally more favorable returns since that of 1974, and
good visual observations of the comet have been obtained. In fact, the first
indication that the comet had not lost its intrinsic luster came at the 1981
return, when Australian comet hunter W. A. Bradfield accidentally “discov-
ered” the comet, during a routine comet sweep, as a condensed nebulosity
of about magnitude 10. That particular apparition, by the way, was not too
dissimilar to the one described here, with perihelion also falling in
February (on the 20th).
The comet was visited by the space probe Deep Space 1 on September 21,
2001, and found to possess a nucleus shaped rather like a sweet potato
with dimensions of 8 × 4 × 4 km (Fig. 13.1). It was also revealed to be one of
the darkest objects yet observed in the Solar System, having an albedo of
just 0.03.

1/1/22 00 h18.0 m −18° 12’ 1.3605 1.1853 9.7 77.1°
1/11/22 00 h38.3 m −11° 01’ 1.3322 1.2011 9.5 74.4°
1/21/22 01 h00.1 m −03° 43’ 1.3140 1.2260 9.4 72.0°
1/31/22 01 h23.4 m 03° 32’ 1.3065 1.2612 9.4 69.9°
2/10/22 01 h48.3 m 10° 33’ 1.3100 1.3073 9.5 68.0°
2/20/22 02 h15.1 m 17° 08’ 1.3244 1.3641 9.7 66.3°
3/02/22 02 h43.8 m 23° 09’ 1.3491 1.4313 9.9 64.7°
3/12/22 03 h14.8 m 28° 30’ 1.3834 1.5081 10.2 63.3°
3/22/22 03 h48.0 m 33° 03’ 1.4261 1.5938 10.6 61.8°
4/01/22 04 h23.4 m 36° 46’ 1.4760 1.6874 10.9 60.4
T = 2022 Feb. 1.81842
q = 1.3062934
e = 0.6376435
ω = 351.91494
Ω = 74.24750
i = 29.30475
P = 6.84 years
Fig. 13.1 Nucleus of Comet Borrelly. (Image courtesy of NASA/JPL)

166 Chapter 13
103P/Hartley
Initially known as P/Hartley 2, this comet was discovered by M. Hartley at

Siding Spring Observatory in Australia on March 15, 1986.
During the very favorable apparition of 2010, the comet was visited on
November 4 by the Deep Impact spacecraft, and images of the nucleus
revealed this to be small (having a diameter of just 0.35 miles, or 0.57 km),
but very active (Fig. 13.2). The comet is also very dark, with an albedo of
0.028. Interestingly, observations from Earth at the 2010 return found the
mixture of heavy water and ordinary water within the comet’s ice to match
that of ancient water on Earth, indicating that our planet may have
received its water from comets similar to 103P.
Although less so than the 2010 return, the return of 2023 is still favorable,
and the comet should be easily observable in small telescopes and moder-
ate-sized binoculars.
Fig. 13.2 Nucleus of Comet Hartley revealing considerable activity. (Image

courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech/UMD)
168 Chapter 13

8/1/23 00 h10.6 m 29° 24’ 1.4358 0.7167 11.3 110.8°
8/11/23 00 h46.2 m 34° 17’ 1.3552 0.6142 10.8 110.3°
8/21/23 01 h33.4 m 38° 55’ 1.2800 0.5278 10.2 108.3°
8/31/23 02 h36.3 m 42° 18’ 1.2122 0.4596 9.6 104.9°
9/10/23 03 h54.2 m 42° 50’ 1.1542 0.4120 9.2 100.3°
9/20/23 05 h15.6 m 39° 12’ 1.1087 0.3869 8.9 95.2°
9/30/23 06 h25.2 m 31° 60’ 1.0782 0.3841 8.7 90.9°
10/10/23 07 h17.9 m 23° 16’ 1.0647 0.3999 8.8 88.3°
10/20/23 07 h56.3 m 14° 46’ 1.0692 0.4281 8.9 87.8°
10/30/23 08 h24.2 m 07° 18’ 1.0913 0.4624 9.2 89.4°
11/9/23 08 h44.0 m 00° 60’ 1.1295 0.4978 9.5 92.7°
11/19/23 08 h57.1 m 50° 11’ 1.1816 0.5310 9.9 97.5°
11/29/23 09 h04.1 m −08° 20’ 1.2448 0.5611 10.2 103.7°
T = 2023 Oct. 12.51608
q = 1.0640916
e = 0.6938296
ω = 181.30133
Ω = 219.74977
i = 13.61070
P = 6.48 years
170 Chapter 13
2P/Encke
In contrast with the previous apparition of this comet, the 2023 return will
see the comet visible from the northern hemisphere as it moves toward
perihelion in the morning sky. Following perihelion, it remains at small
elongation for an extended period and will not be visually accessible.

09/21/23 08 h53.5 m 27° 58’ 0.8146 0.9056 9.9 50.2°
09/26/23 09 h37.0 m 23° 49’ 0.7249 0.9020 9.2 44.3°
10/01/23 10 h18.8 m 18° 46’ 0.6333 0.9218 8.3 38.2°
10/06/23 10 h58.2 m 13° 06’ 0.5418 0.9659 7.4 31.9°
10/11/23 11 h35.8 m 07° 06’ 0.4547 1.0339 6.4 25.8°
10/16/23 12 h12.6 m 00° 56’ 0.3820 1.1222 5.5 19.6°
T = 2023 Oct. 22.52044
q = 0.3395950
e = 0.8469348
ω = 187.28692
Ω = 334.02012
i = 11.33676
P = 3.30 years
172 Chapter 13
144P/Kushida
This comet was discovered by an amateur astronomer! Y. Kushida

(Yamanashi, Japan) found it on a photograph taken on January 8, 1994,
and estimated its magnitude at the time as 13.5.
During 2024, the comet makes a very favorable return and should become
bright enough for visual observation with modest telescopes from late
2023, at a large elongation, as it passes relatively close to Earth. A long
series of visual magnitude estimates should be possible and will assist
greatly in determining the brightness behavior of this object.

12/1/23 02 h49.8 m 16° 56’ 1.5356 0.5790 9.9 156.9°
12/11/23 02 h50.1 m 15° 43’ 1.4929 0.5693 9.7 146.5°
12/21/23 02 h55.1 m 14° 52’ 1.4571 0.5731 9.6 137.2°
12/31/23 03 h05.4 m 14° 28’ 1.4293 0.5875 9.6 129.2°
1/10/24 03 h20.9 m 14° 30’ 1.4102 0.6110 9.6 122.7°
1/20/24 03 h41.1 m 14° 55’ 1.4003 0.6425 9.6 117.3°
1/30/24 04 h05.2 m 15° 33’ 1.4000 0.6820 9.8 113.0°
2/9/24 04 h32.5 m 16° 16’ 1.4092 0.7302 10.0 109.4°
2/19/24 05 h01.8 m 14° 46’ 1.4276 0.7877 10.2 106.4°
2/29/24 05 h32.5 m 17° 22’ 1. 4548 0.8555 10.5 103.8°
T = 2024 Jan. 25.36799
q = 1.3989588
e = 0.6348694
ω = 216.33024
Ω = 242.91666
i = 3.93152
P = 7.50 years
174 Chapter 13
12P/Pons-Brooks
Comet Pons-Brooks is widely considered as one of the more interesting

objects of moderately short period and has been rated by some astrono-
mers as next to Halley’s Comet as the finest comet with an orbital period of
under 100 years.
It was first noted by the famous comet hunter J. Pons, who found it from
the Marseille Observatory on July 21, 1812. The comet’s magnitude was
about 6.5 at discovery, but brightened to naked-eye visibility by August 1
and at the end of that month reached a magnitude of 4.5, at the same time
sporting a tail nearly 2° in length. It attained a maximum brightness of
about fourth magnitude in the middle of September, when a split tail was
visible, one section of which extended for some 3°.
Orbital computations by J. Encke gave a period of 70.68 years and, come

early 1883, searches were made for the returning comet, but without suc-
cess. Then, on September 2 of that year W. Brooks discovered a comet that
subsequently proved to be a return of Comet Pons. The orbital period
derived by Encke turned out to be a little short, and the comet actually did
not arrive at perihelion until January 26, 1884, after having passed just
0.63 AU from Earth on the 10th of that month. At that very favorable
return, Pons-Brooks (as it had been renamed) reached third magnitude and
sported a tail traced for some 20° in binoculars.
Just 1 week before perihelion, dramatic changes were noted in the central
region of the coma. One observer described three distinct zones within the
coma as well a sharply defined central “nucleus” with twin jets emanating
from it, all enclosed within a circular halo. This activity coincided with an
outburst of at least one magnitude.
At its next return to perihelion, the comet was recovered by Elizabeth

Roemer at Lick Observatory on June 20, 1953, as an object of magnitude
17.5, on its way to perihelion on May 27, 1954. This return of the comet was
not a favorable one, and the maximum brightness attained was about
magnitude six, with half a degree of tail recorded. Several outbursts of
between two and three magnitudes were noted, however, indicating that
its behavior in 1884 was not atypical for this comet but part of its regular
performance. As such, similar activity may be expected in 2024.
In common with its previous return, the coming apparition is not a

favorable one, but the comet should still be a very interesting object, and
a careful watch on its magnitude and general appearance will be worth-
while. Rapidly changing features within the central condensation, prob-
ably accompanied by sudden outbursts in brightness, can be well
monitored by visual means with only modest instruments.

1/1/24 19 h36.8 m 37° 45’ 1.9981 2.2581 9.7 62.2°
1/11/24 20 h06.4 m 37° 53’ 1.8684 2.1433 9.3 60.6°
1/21/24 20 h40.2 m 38° 06’ 1.7372 2.0316 8.8 58.7°
1/31/24 21 h18.5 m 38° 15’ 1.6049 1.9264 8.3 56.3°
2/10/24 22 h01.4 m 38° 06’ 1.4720 1.8317 7.8 53.3°
2/20/24 22 h48.6 m 37° 21’ 1.3397 1.7515 7.3 49.5°
3/1/24 23 h38.7 m 35° 42’ 1.2098 1.6889 6.7 44.9°
3/11/24 00 h29.6 m 32° 53’ 1.0853 1.6457 6.1 39.7°
3/21/24 01 h19.0 m 28° 49’ 0.9713 1.6211 5.6 34.0°
3/31/24 02 h05.1 m 23° 35’ 0.8754 1.6112 5.1 28.6°
4/10/24 02 h46.8 m 17° 23’ 0.8083 1.6088 4.7 24.3°
4/20/24 03 h24.2 m 10° 33’ 0.7810 1.6054 4.5 22.7°
4/30/24 03 h58.6 m 03° 27’ 0.7991 1.5951 4.6 24.7°
5/10/24 04 h31.5 m −03° 39’ 0.8587 1.5777 4.9 29.6°
5/20/24 05 h04.8 m −10° 38’ 0.9496 1.5588 5.4 36.0°
5/30/24 05 h40.1 m −17° 25’ 1.0606 1.5467 5.9 43.0°
6/9/24 06 h18.4 m −23° 54’ 1.1834 1.5504 6.4 49.7°
6/19/24 07 h00.3 m −29° 53’ 1.3125 1.5777 6.9 55.9°
6/29/24 07 h45.5 m −35° 08’ 1.4444 1.6338 7.5 60.9°
7/9/24 08 h33.0 m −39° 23’ 1.5773 1.7211 8.0 64.5°
7/19/24 09 h20.9 m −42° 34’ 1.7098 1.8385 8.5 66.5°
7/29/24 10 h07.5 m −44° 45’ 1.8413 1.9829 9.0 67.0°
8/8/24 10 h51.2 m −46° 07’ 1.9713 2.1494 9.5 66.2°
8/18/24 11 h31.2 m −46° 55’ 2.0995 2.3327 10.0 64.2°
8/26/24 12 h07.4 m −47° 19’ 2.2260 2.5278 10.4 61.3°
T = 2024 Apr. 21.0383
q = 0.7807785
e = 0.9545811
ω = 198.98197
Ω = 255.85617
i = 74.19136
P = 71.28 years
176 Chapter 13
13P/Olbers
On March 6, 1815, W. Olbers (Bremen, Germany) discovered a small comet

of about magnitude 7.5. Slowly brightening as it approached both the Sun
and Earth, the comet reached an estimated brightness of about magnitude
5 by the end of April, by which time a tail 1° long had become apparent.
Numerous calculations of its orbit were made, and these agreed that it was
elliptical, with a period of between 72 and 77 years, the best orbit (com-
puted by F. Bessel) 74.1 years, indicating a return to perihelion on February
9, 1887. Searches were accordingly made prior to this date, but no comet
was found.
Then, on August 25, 1887, the famous comet hunter W. Brooks discovered
an object that was quickly identified as Olbers’ Comet. The Bessel orbit had
indicated too short a period, and the comet did not actually arrive at peri-
helion until October 9, 1887, some 8 months later than had been predicted.
A maximum magnitude of around 7 was reached during September, and
the greatest tail lengths were measured at some 10 min of arc.
The comet returned to perihelion on June 19, 1956, and was recovered by
A. Mrkos at Lomnicky Stit on January 4 of that year at an estimated magni-
tude of 16. The maximum magnitude of approximately 6.5 was attained in
June and July when 1° of tail was recorded.
Unlike Pons-Brooks, Comet Olbers appears to be rather well behaved, so

outbursts and other anomalous events are unlikely. Nevertheless, visual
observers will have a unique opportunity through the middle months of
2024 to observe two relatively bright comets of moderate period around
the same time in the evening sky.
178 Chapter 13

4/1/24 03 h40.9 m 15° 17’ 1.7686 2.3234 10.5 45.3°
4/11/24 03 h57.4 m 18° 59’ 1.6689 2.3087 10.1 39.9°
4/21/24 04 h16.4 m 22° 41’ 1.5731 2.2835 9.6 35.2°
5/1/24 04 h38.5 m 26° 24’ 1.4825 2.2486 9.0 31.3°
5/11/24 05 h04.1 m 30° 04’ 1.3992 2.2049 8.5 28.2°
5/21/24 05 h33.9 m 33° 36’ 1.3253 2.1541 8.0 26.3°
5/31/24 06 h08.6 m 36° 51’ 1.2634 2.0987 7.6 25.6°
6/10/24 06 h49.1 m 39° 35’ 1.2162 2.0419 7.2 26.2°
6/20/24 07 h35.5 m 41° 32’ 1.1863 1.9881 7.0 27.7°
6/30/24 08 h27.1 m 42° 19’ 1.1755 1.9422 6.8 29.9°
7/10/24 09 h21.6 m 41° 39’ 1.1845 1.9103 6.9 32.4°
7/20/24 10 h15.8 m 39° 24’ 1.2127 1.8979 7.0 34.9°
7/30/24 11 h06.7 m 35° 45’ 1.2584 1.9099 7.4 37.1°
8/9/24 11 h52.3 m 31° 05’ 1.3191 1.9489 7.8 38.7°
8/19/24 12 h32.5 m 25° 52’ 1.3920 2.0153 8.3 39.5°
8/29/24 13 h07.7 m 20° 31’ 1.4746 2.1071 8.9 39.5°
9/8/24 13 h38.9 m 15° 22’ 1.5645 2.2206 9.4 38.6°
9/18/24 14 h06.8 m 10° 34’ 1.6599 2.3510 10.1 36.8°
9/28/24 14 h32.1 m 06° 13’ 1.7593 2.4934 10.6 34.3°
T = 2024 Jun. 30.45778
q = 1.1754945
e = 0.930353
ω = 64.41497
Ω = 85.84788
i = 44.66688
P = 69.27 years
180 Chapter 13
24P/Schaumasse
M. Schaumasse found this comet at Nice on December 1, 1911, when it

appeared as a diffuse object of magnitude 12 near the star Sigma Virginis.
An elliptical orbit was calculated by C. Fayet and Schaumasse, and the
comet was duly recovered at its next return on October 30, 1919, though
some 6° from the position predicted. It was seen subsequently in 1927 and
missed in 1935, but the orbit was carefully computed for the next return of
1943, when recovery of the comet was expected.
Nevertheless, several searches around the predicted positions were fruit-

less until Henry Giclas (Lowell Observatory) found images of the comet on
wide-field photographs taken on March 24, 1944, some 4 months after
perihelion. Despite the care taken in computing the orbit, the comet was 7°
from the predicted position at the date of recovery. This explained why
earlier searches had been unsuccessful, but the discrepancy was not easily
explained and would, indeed, remain a mystery until the 1960s, when
these types of departures from calculated orbits seen in this and other
comets were demonstrated to be caused by the jet-like effects of material
escaping from the cometary nucleus. Such “non-gravitational effects” are
now regularly taken into account when calculating the orbits of short-
period comets.
Comet Schaumasse made a very favorable return in 1952, just 0.27 AU from
Earth on January 27, and became unexpectedly bright. Photographs
revealed the very diffuse coma up to 2.7° in diameter, with a total magni-
tude of nearly 5. Visual observers saw smaller coma diameters (up to about
22 min of arc) and gave magnitude estimates of around 6.2. This has some-
times been listed as an outburst; however, it is more likely that at least
most of the unexpected brightness was due to the fact that the very
favorable observing circumstances permitted the brightness behavior of
the comet to be better scrutinized. It seems that this comet brightens very
rapidly as it approaches perihelion but maintains a highly diffuse appear-
ance that can result in the total brightness being difficult to estimate and
strongly dependent upon observational circumstances.
The comet was again observed in 1960 but was not detected in 1968 and
apparently not in 1976, leading some astronomers to suggest that it might
have disintegrated. Nevertheless, it was again seen in 1984 and, once the
orbit had been accurately recalculated for that return, identified with a
faint suspect on a photograph taken by E. Roemer on December 27, 1976,
but for which no confirmation could be obtained at the time.
The return of 2026 is a rather favorable one, and the comet is expected
to come within the range of wide-field telescopes and moderate sized
binoculars. It should be remembered however, that the phrase “big and
bashful” fits this comet! Typically, the coma is rather large, diffuse and of
low surface intensity, so it may appear somewhat less easy to observe
than the predicted magnitudes seem to imply. The best results will
probably be obtained using a pair of good binoculars mounted on a
sturdy tripod.

12/1/25 10 h19.4 m 19° 13’ 1.2861 0.6873 9.4 98.9°
12/11/25 11 h09.1 m 18° 03’ 1.2411 0.6384 9.0 97.5°
12/21/25 11 h58.7 m 16° 25’ 1.2082 0.6094 8.7 95.8°
12/31/25 12 h45.6 m 14° 28’ 1.1889 0.5975 8.6 94.4°
1/10/26 13 h27.7 m 12° 28’ 1.1842 0.5980 8.6 93.8°
1/20/26 14 h03.8 m 10° 35’ 1.1944 0.6063 8.6 94.4°
1/30/26 14 h33.6 m 08° 59’ 1.2189 0.6178 8.8 96.3°
2/9/26 14 h56.9 m 07° 42’ 1.2565 0.6294 9.1 99.7°
2/19/26 15 h14.0 m 06° 44’ 1.3055 0.6394 9.4 104.6°
3/1/26 15 h24.7 m 06° 02’ 1.3640 0.6478 9.7 111.0°
T = 2026 Jan. 8.15264
q = 1.1839458
e = 0.7082524
ω = 58.48141
Ω = 78.27298
i = 11.50131
P = 8.18 years
182 Chapter 13
10P/Tempel
Known as Tempel 2 according to the old designation, this comet was dis-
covered by W. Tempel in Milan on July 3, 1875. The comet follows a very
stable orbit that has changed little for at least 300 years and becomes a
relatively easy visual object when perihelion takes place around midyear,
during the northern summer and the southern winter. During these
returns, the comet typically reaches magnitude 8.
The comet’s brightness behavior has been compared to that of d’Arrest and
is fairly constant between returns, although there is a tendency for bright-
ness jumps of up to two or three magnitudes to occur around 1 or 2 weeks
after perihelion.
Perihelion in 2026 falls into the “very favorable” period, and the comet
should become an interesting object for visual observers using binoculars
and small telescopes. A watch for sudden brightness surges should be
maintained during this apparition, especially during the period between
August 9 and 16.
184 Chapter 13

5/1/26 19 h12.0 m −08° 54’ 1.7088 1.0610 11.4 111.4°
5/11/26 19 h31.1 m −08° 26’ 1.6565 0.9424 10.8 116.1°
5/21/26 19 h50.0 m −08° 09’ 1.6076 0.8339 10.3 120.8°
5/31/26 20 h08.6 m −08° 11’ 1.5629 0.7361 9.7 125.8°
6/10/26 20 h26.9 m −08° 42’ 1.5229 0.6495 9.1 131.1°
6/20/26 20 h44.8 m −09° 54’ 1.4884 0.5749 8.6 136.8°
6/30/26 21 h02.0 m −11° 56’ 1.4601 0.5131 8.2 143.2°
7/10/26 21 h18.4 m −14° 57’ 1.4386 0.4653 7.8 150.0°
7/20/26 21 h33.7 m −18° 50’ 1.4245 0.4327 7.5 157.6°
7/30/26 21 h47.3 m −23° 15’ 1.4181 0.4164 7.4 162.6°
8/9/26 21 h59.2 m −27° 37’ 1.4196 0.4166 7.4 164.4°
8/19/26 22 h09.3 m −31° 18’ 1.4289 0.4330 7.6 161.2°
8/29/26 22 h18.2 m −33° 51’ 1.4459 0.4645 7.9 155.6°
9/8/26 22 h26.6 m −35° 05’ 1.4700 0.5099 8.2 149.5°
9/18/26 22 h35.1 m −35° 07’ 1.5007 0.5681 8.7 143.6°
9/28/26 22 h44.4 m −34° 08’ 1.5373 0.6384 9.2 138.0°
10/8/26 22 h54.6 m −32° 25’ 1.5792 0.7205 9.8 132.7°
10/18/26 23 h05.8 m −30° 09’ 1.6256 0.8143 10.3 127.4°
10/28/26 23 h17.9 m −27° 33’ 1.6758 0.9195 10.9 122.3°
T = 2026 Aug. 2.11517
q = 1.4177393
e = 0.5374522
ω = 195.46757
Ω = 117.79749
i = 12.02724
P = 5.37 years
186 Chapter 13
2P/Encke
The return of this comet in early 2027 should see it accessible from
the northern hemisphere as an early evening object prior to and even
(for favorably placed observers) through perihelion. Following perihelion
passage, the comet shifts into the morning sky for Southern Hemisphere
observers as it moves outward from the Sun.

01/06/27 22 h32.0 m 02° 58’ 0.8795 0.8606 10.3 56.5°
01/11/27 22 h31.0 m 02° 18’ 0.7916 0.8254 9.6 51.0°
01/16/27 22 h28.4 m 07° 33’ 0.7011 0.7827 8.7 45.0°
01/21/27 22 h23.0 m −00° 07’ 0.6092 0.7334 7.6 38.2°
01/26/27 22 h12.5 m −02° 32’ 0.5181 0.6815 6.4 29.7°
02/20/27 20 h37.0 m −23° 28’ 0.4266 0.9118 5.7 25.5°
02/25/27 20 h44.2 m −23° 50’ 0.5105 1.0332 7.2 29.1°
03/02/27 20 h54.6 m −23° 35’ 0.6014 1.1405 8.5 31.8°
03/07/27 21 h05.9 m −23° 04’ 0.6934 1.2336 9.6 34.2°
T = 2027 Feb. 10.21201
q = 0.3385775
e = 0.8473374
ω = 187.28753
Ω = 334.02078
i = 11.34814
P = 3.30 years
188 Chapter 13
45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova
Following its very favorable apparition in 2016/17, this comet was badly
placed at its subsequent return of 2022 but should again be visually acces-
sible to small telescopes as it plunges into twilight on its way to perihelion
at the less-than-favorable return of 2027.

8/1/27 05 h00.7 m 17° 02’ 0.8068 0.5972 11.0 52.6°
8/6/27 05 h44.2 m 18° 27’ 0.7423 0.6470 10.5 46.9°
8/1/27 06 h23.8 m 19° 11 0.6829 0.7122 10.0 42.3°
8/16/27 06 h59.8 m 19° 23’ 0.6313 0.7902 9.5 38.6°
8/21/27 07 h32.9 m 19° 10’ 0.5909 0.8784 9.1 35.6°
8/26/27 08 h03.7 m 18° 34’ 0.5657 0.9739 9.0 33.1°
8/31/27 08 h32.7 m 17° 40’ 0.5587 1.0731 9.1 30.9°
T = 2027 Aug. 30.32928
q = 0.5585351
e = 0.8171852
ω = 327.95622
Ω = 87.66154
i = 4.32313
P = 5.34 years
29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, an “Outbursting” Comet to Watch 191
CHAPTER 14
29P/SCHWASSMANN-WACHMANN,
AN “OUTBURSTING” COMET TO WATCH
This unusual comet deserves special mention. True, it will not become a
bright telescopic object anytime between 2017 and 2027 (unless some-
thing very unusual happens!), but because it moves in an almost circular
orbit between the giant outer planets Jupiter and Saturn it is, like these
planets, accessible every year throughout its orbit. Most of the time, it will
appear as nothing more than a speck of light between magnitudes 17 and
18, out of the range of visual observers unless they are fortunate to have
access to telescopes of 1 m diameter or thereabouts. Nevertheless, in view
of its past behavior, there will no doubt be many occasions when it will be
an easy object for telescopes having apertures of just one quarter of that
diameter, and it is this that makes comet 29P such a fascinating object for
visual observers (Fig. 14.1).
The long-standing mystery surrounding this object involves the way in

which it will suddenly increase dramatically in brightness, rising from vis-
ual obscurity to become visible in telescopes as small as 10, 8 or even 6 in.
(25, 20 or 15 cm) diameter in just a matter of hours.
As often happens in instances of comets that are prone to large brightness

outbursts, 29P was discovered during just such an episode. When found by
A. Schwassmann and A. Wachmann on November 15, 1927, the comet
appeared on photographs as a diffuse spot roughly estimated as between
13th and 14th magnitude. But it quickly became apparent that this was no
ordinary comet. For one thing, at that time no comet was known to orbit
the Sun with such low eccentricity. Secondly, its large perihelion distance
of around 5.5 AU was also a record at that time.
It was not long, however, before astronomers realized that the most
remarkable thing about this comet was its propensity for very large varia-
tions in brightness. Had its luminosity been steady, the comet’s brightness

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_14
192 Chapter 14
Fig. 14.1 Comet 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann in outburst. (Image cour-

tesy of NASA/JPL/Caltech/Ames Research Center/University of Arizona)
would have varied by less than a magnitude between perihelion and aphe-
lion, thanks to the near-circular nature of its orbit. In actual fact, the com-
et’s range of brightness was more like eight magnitudes! The tendency to
fluctuate wildly in brightness was, apparently, at least a relatively long-
standing property of this object. In 1931, K. Reinmuth found images of the
comet on photographs secured as long ago as March 4 and 5, 1902, and
estimated its brightness then to have been around magnitude 12. Clearly,
it had been experiencing outbursts in brightness for at least 30 years and
probably far longer.
During its quiescent phase, the comet maintained an essentially asteroidal

appearance, having at best a mere trace of nebulosity. Then, with the onset
of an outburst, its brightness would increase within a very few hours by
several magnitudes, typically taking the comet from a magnitude of 18 or
19 to something in the order of 11 or 12. Throughout this initial phase, how-
ever, its appearance would remain stellar or asteroidal. Indeed, on one occa-
sion the outbursting comet was reported as a nova, indicating that it must
have presented a distinctly stellar appearance at that time. Upon reaching
peak brightness, however, the star-like point of light begins to swell, at first
into a strongly condensed disk but by degrees becoming increasingly large
and progressively more diffuse with the passing days. During this phase,
the surface brightness of the coma declines for a period of about 1 or 2
weeks, until it becomes invisible—melting away into the background sky—
until all that remains is the asteroidal nucleus. The comet regains the same
appearance that it displayed before the outburst commenced.
It is not unusual for the small, compact coma into which the initial star-like
point develops to assume a semi-spiral form. Photographic images of the
comet during this phase possess (in the author’s opinion) a rather striking
resemblance to the pupae stage of mosquito larvae, sometimes descrip-
tively known as “tumblers”!
Spectroscopic analysis of the comet during these outbursts revealed the

strong dominance of a continuous spectrum of sunlight reflected from
particles of dust.
The strange behavior of 29P has, over the years, not unsurprisingly given rise
to a good number of hypotheses as to the cause of these outbursts. We have
already seen how Lyttleton attempted to explain them, on the basis of his
sand bank model, by invoking at least two assemblages of particles that
sporadically encountered one another, resulting in the copious release of
fine dust motes through the mutual collisions of many of the larger particles.
Other suggestions, for example by N. B. Richter, involved solar activity as a
catalyst triggering reactions at the surface of the comet’s nucleus.
Unfortunately, detailed theories of the mechanism(s) involved in this process
proved to be elusive. Other possibilities, for example impacts by meteorites
on the nucleus’ surface, while possible and probably adequate to trigger an
outburst, were not convincing in the case of this comet simply because its
activity was too frequent to make this explanation appear credible.
Then, in early 2016, an interesting new mechanism for the outbursts was
proposed by English astronomer Richard Miles. By analyzing outburst data
published in Minor Planets and Comets circulars between the years 2002
and 2014, Miles found that 64 outbursts had been observed during that
time period (more presumably had occurred, allowing for the times when
the comet was in conjunction with the Sun) and that these could be placed
into three more or less distinct classes.
194 Chapter 14
First, there were the isolated explosive events that pretty much fitted the
description given above. Secondly, Miles found that other outbursts
occurred in groups, with individual events separated by periods of from 5
to 15 days. Thirdly, there were what appeared to be gradual outbursts,
where the comet’s brightness increased relatively slowly to maximum,
quite unlike the sudden explosive events traditionally associated with this
object. These “slow” outbursts, Miles speculated, may actually be series of
multiple mini-outbursts, each mini-event making a cumulative contribu-
tion to the growing coma. The number of outbursts of all three varieties is
remarkably high, strongly implying that they result from some ongoing
process within the nucleus of the comet.
Miles puts forward the following scenario. Methane ice, trapped under pres-
sure beneath the non-volatile surface crust of the comet nucleus, is slowly
warmed by the distant Sun and begins to melt. In its liquid form, this meth-
ane absorbs super-volatile gases, mainly carbon monoxide and molecular
nitrogen. But the dissolution of these gases in liquid methane is exothermic,
releasing considerable heat via enthalpy of solution (see the glossary in this
book for further details of this phenomenon). This release of heat, however,
melts more frozen methane, extending even deeper within the nucleus.
When the solar warming close to the surface of the nucleus occurs above a
gas-laden subsurface reservoir and softens paraffin-like hydrocarbons
within the crust, a crustal plate may dislodge under the pressure of the accu-
mulated gas. The sudden release of a crustal plate will explosively release
the solution of dissolved gases (in particular, CO) in the process expelling
entrapped dust into the surrounding space. This is what is witnessed as an
outburst. The disturbed area of surface will reseal as the plates sink back
under the gravity of the unusually large nucleus. Soon, the waxy hydrocar-
bons harden again, and the “wound” is healed … until the next outburst!
This process constitutes a form of cryovolcanism. In certain respects, it is not

dissimilar to the carbon dioxide “fountains” on Mars or the nitrogen “geysers”
on Neptune’s large moon Triton. These planetary features are caused by
sunlight penetrating a more or less transparent layer of frozen carbon diox-
ide (on Mars) or nitrogen (on Triton) and warming a darker underlying layer
to a degree where some of the underlying ice sublimates, creating a buildup
of gas pressure and eventually rupturing the icy surface layer. The subsur-
face pocket of pressurized gas erupts through the breach in the surface layer
causing the geyser-like fountain. While not exactly the same process as envi-
sioned by Miles for the outbursts of 29P, there are certain similarities.
This process is not suggested as an explanation for all cometary outbursts.

As we have seen, these events take different forms and have a variety of
causes. On the other hand, cryovolcanic outbursts are not likely to be
unique to 29P. The “central condensation” outbursts of C/Hale-Bopp,
although contrasting with those of 29P in so far as they had little overall
effect on the comet’s total brightness, nevertheless were noted at the time
as having certain similarities with the 29P events and may, perhaps, have
also resulted from cryovolcanism.
An interesting possibility involves the prospect of similar events occurring

among members of the class of distant comet-like bodies known as
Centaurs. In many respects, 29P resembles one of these objects, except that
it orbits closer to the Sun and is regularly more active. Yet, some Centaurs
have displayed activity and are classified as comets, and one (Echeclus) has
displayed large brightness outbursts on two occasions. A careful monitoring
of 29P may therefore yield information, not just about this comet but about
an entire class of bodies in the furthest regions of our planetary system.
The orbit of this comet has, since discovery, become even closer to a circle
with the orbital eccentricity decreasing from 0.15 at its 1925 perihelion
passage to just 0.04 at present (perihelion March 31, 2019). The comet’s
orbital period has also become shorter, from 16.4 years in 1925 to 14.8 years
in 2019. During this time period, the aphelion distance has also shrunk
from 7.45 to 6.29 AU; however, the perihelion distance actually increased
from 5.48 AU in 1925 and should reach 5.76 in 2019. Nevertheless, although
the comet does not approach the Sun quite as closely now as it did at the
time of its discovery, its average solar distance has actually shrunk from
6.465 AU down to 6.026 AU, so that it remains closer to the Sun than it did
100 years ago, even though its closest approach is now more distant.
The orbital elements (taken from “Small-Body Database”, December 2015)

for the next perihelion passage are as follows;
T = 2019 Mar. 31.73518008

q = 5.76279201920792
e = 0.04159566771213193
ω = 49.49588898286991
Ω = 312.4067055894263
i = 9.377379824125152
P = 14.74 years
196 Chapter 14
During its inactive phase, the comet will be too faint for visual observation
with small or moderate-sized telescopes; however, once the position of the
comet is known, all the visual observer need do is take a few minutes from
the night’s observing schedule to examine the predicted location of the
comet for the possible presence of a star-like or diffuse spot. A photo-
graphic star atlas showing stars down to 14th magnitude or thereabouts is
very helpful in identifying any possible stars that might be mistaken for the
comet during an early phase of an outburst.
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2017-Jan-01 00:00 20 09 58.88 −21 25 25.1 15.04 6.79367627732718
2017-Jan-11 00:00 20 18 17.56 −20 52 45.5 15.06 6.83456587890112
2017-Jan-21 00:00 20 26 40.84 −20 18 30.0 15.06 6.85332587302504
2017-Jan-31 00:00 20 35 03.26 −19 42 53.9 15.06 6.84954804276455
2017-Feb-10 00:00 20 43 18.85 −19 06 17.6 15.05 6.82328519071272
2017-Feb-20 00:00 20 51 22.35 −18 29 03.3 15.03 6.77523818535585
2017-Mar-02 00:00 20 59 08.68 −17 51 36.9 15.01 6.70617497349897
2017-Mar-12 00:00 21 06 32.27 −17 14 28.3 14.98 6.61744145811262
2017-Mar-22 00:00 21 13 28.29 −16 38 07.9 14.94 6.51084119887965
2017-Apr-01 00:00 21 19 51.60 −16 03 09.0 14.90 6.38823492557956
2017-Apr-11 00:00 21 25 36.74 −15 30 07.5 14.85 6.25213255548952
2017-Apr-21 00:00 21 30 38.93 −14 59 37.5 14.80 6.10528674218751
2017-May-01 00:00 21 34 52.86 −14 32 15.3 14.74 5.95059032787674
2017-May-11 00:00 21 38 13.41 −14 08 35.4 14.68 5.79159148943826
2017-May-21 00:00 21 40 36.43 −13 49 07.6 14.62 5.63188140475326
2017-May-31 00:00 21 41 57.69 −13 34 19.6 14.56 5.47530578843954
2017-Jun-10 00:00 21 42 14.67 −13 24 29.0 14.50 5.32619949498370
2017-Jun-20 00:00 21 41 26.83 −13 19 42.2 14.44 5.18868109535246
2017-Jun-30 00:00 21 39 35.34 −13 19 53.9 14.39 5.06704492074643
2017-Jul-10 00:00 21 36 45.44 −13 24 39.1 14.34 4.96550725506961
2017-Jul-20 00:00 21 33 05.59 −13 33 15.7 14.31 4.88756314327416
2017-Jul-30 00:00 21 28 47.63 −13 44 46.8 14.28 4.83636363921086
2017-Aug-09 00:00 21 24 07.64 −13 57 58.8 14.27 4.81402186817716
2017-Aug-19 00:00 21 19 23.05 −14 11 35.2 14.27 4.82138713960663
2017-Aug-29 00:00 21 14 52.29 −14 24 19.4 14.29 4.85842148186128
2017-Sep-08 00:00 21 10 53.26 −14 35 01.4 14.32 4.92356732345314
2017-Sep-18 00:00 21 07 40.37 −14 42 46.6 14.36 5.01425705374787
2017-Sep-28 00:00 21 05 25.25 −14 46 52.5 14.40 5.12724275778841
2017-Oct-08 00:00 21 04 15.37 −14 46 50.9 14.46 5.25830295480123
2017-Oct-18 00:00 21 04 13.71 −14 42 26.7 14.51 5.40311148553410
2017-Oct-28 00:00 21 05 20.84 −14 33 31.3 14.57 5.55718112116829
(continued)
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2017-Nov-07 00:00 21 07 34.01 −14 20 03.9 14.63 5.71581803068882
2017-Nov-17 00:00 21 10 48.53 −14 02 09.0 14.69 5.87484636019447
2017-Nov-27 00:00 21 14 59.10 −13 39 52.2 14.75 6.03015336338172
2017-Dec-07 00:00 21 19 58.89 −13 13 24.3 14.80 6.17789846885775
2017-Dec-17 00:00 21 25 41.18 −12 42 57.8 14.85 6.31492920305675
2017-Dec-27 00:00 21 31 59.39 −12 08 46.2 14.89 6.43818530379111
2018-Jan-06 00:00 21 38 46.48 −11 31 08.0 14.92 6.54514767797618
2018-Jan-16 00:00 21 45 56.25 −10 50 21.8 14.95 6.63391760115856
2018-Jan-26 00:00 21 53 22.69 −10 06 48.4 14.97 6.70270607491389
2018-Feb-05 00:00 22 00 59.69 −09 20 52.8 14.99 6.75041057238508
2018-Feb-15 00:00 22 08 42.15 −08 32 59.1 15.00 6.77637308255155
2018-Feb-25 00:00 22 16 24.79 −07 43 34.3 15.00 6.78009620564965
2018-Mar-07 00:00 22 24 02.48 −06 53 08.1 14.99 6.76180521241427
2018-Mar-17 00:00 22 31 30.81 −06 02 08.5 14.98 6.72195529705512
2018-Mar-27 00:00 22 38 44.89 −05 11 07.0 14.96 6.66124688616977
2018-Apr-06 00:00 22 45 40.04 −04 20 36.4 14.93 6.58104576139646
2018-Apr-16 00:00 22 52 11.94 −03 31 07.7 14.90 6.48276893649990
2018-Apr-26 00:00 22 58 15.50 −02 43 16.4 14.86 6.36820131598559
2018-May-06 00:00 23 03 46.04 −01 57 37.6 14.81 6.23967414318507
2018-May-16 00:00 23 08 38.77 −01 14 46.1 14.76 6.09949547298556
2018-May-26 00:00 23 12 48.27 −00 35 21.0 14.71 5.95049016393419
2018-Jun-05 00:00 23 16 09.90 +00 00 00.5 14.65 5.79587055004000
2018-Jun-15 00:00 23 18 38.84 +00 30 41.2 14.59 5.63886588205088
2018-Jun-25 00:00 23 20 10.61 +00 56 01.5 14.53 5.48331814469282
2018-Jul-05 00:00 23 20 42.45 +01 15 29.4 14.47 5.33321644617332
2018-Jul-15 00:00 23 20 12.46 +01 28 36.1 14.41 5.19259570832011
2018-Jul-25 00:00 23 18 41.24 +01 35 01.5 14.35 5.06592415037312
2018-Aug-04 00:00 23 16 12.80 +01 34 44.4 14.31 4.95732644114019
2018-Aug-14 00:00 23 12 53.83 +01 27 58.7 14.27 4.87069912149199
2018-Aug-24 00:00 23 08 55.46 +01 15 23.3 14.24 4.80964114861139
2018-Sep-03 00:00 23 04 32.15 +00 58 04.9 14.23 4.77660076019072
2018-Sep-13 00:00 23 00 00.28 +00 37 27.1 14.22 4.77321573367729
2018-Sep-23 00:00 22 55 38.26 +00 15 14.7 14.24 4.79992235915918
2018-Oct-03 00:00 22 51 43.20 −00 06 42.6 14.26 4.85561877978042
2018-Oct-13 00:00 22 48 29.96 −00 26 41.9 14.30 4.93833788205455
2018-Oct-23 00:00 22 46 10.78 −00 43 08.2 14.34 5.04488608457234
2018-Nov-02 00:00 22 44 53.08 −00 54 49.7 14.40 5.17124029661207
2018-Nov-12 00:00 22 44 40.91 −01 00 55.2 14.45 5.31317819120608
2018-Nov-22 00:00 22 45 35.11 −01 00 50.9 14.52 5.46591188700395
2018-Dec-02 00:00 22 47 33.11 −00 54 25.3 14.58 5.62478593787174
(continued)
198 Chapter 14
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2018-Dec-12 00:00 22 50 31.15 −00 41 38.5 14.64 5.78543587528032
2018-Dec-22 00:00 22 54 23.86 −00 22 41.2 14.70 5.94345066367946
2019-Jan-01 00:00 22 59 04.84 +00 02 04.3 14.75 6.09506435878713
2019-Jan-11 00:00 23 04 28.13 +00 32 14.1 14.80 6.23686908053453
2019-Jan-21 00:00 23 10 27.14 +01 07 18.5 14.85 6.36568846832621
2019-Jan-31 00:00 23 16 55.54 +01 46 44.0 14.88 6.47913164556439
2019-Feb-10 00:00 23 23 47.77 +02 29 59.2 14.92 6.57504881490975
2019-Feb-20 00:00 23 30 57.94 +03 16 29.2 14.94 6.65169101945431
2019-Mar-02 00:00 23 38 20.83 +04 05 39.0 14.96 6.70803209448973
2019-Mar-12 00:00 23 45 51.72 +04 56 57.1 14.97 6.74315138140315
2019-Mar-22 00:00 23 53 25.54 +05 49 48.5 14.98 6.75663914338487
2019-Apr-01 00:00 00 00 57.96 +06 43 41.1 14.97 6.74863303304225
2019-Apr-11 00:00 00 08 24.60 +07 38 04.9 14.96 6.71929825018231
2019-Apr-21 00:00 00 15 40.73 +08 32 26.8 14.95 6.66937856696175
2019-May-01 00:00 00 22 42.20 +09 26 18.3 14.92 6.59994868267699
2019-May-11 00:00 00 29 24.30 +10 19 10.0 14.90 6.51213320938081
2019-May-21 00:00 00 35 42.01 +11 10 30.1 14.86 6.40767433787460
2019-May-31 00:00 00 41 30.67 +11 59 50.9 14.82 6.28845807201195
2019-Jun-10 00:00 00 46 44.69 +12 46 40.8 14.77 6.15655348992750
2019-Jun-20 00:00 00 51 18.55 +13 30 26.1 14.72 6.01465475724122
2019-Jun-30 00:00 00 55 06.91 +14 10 35.2 14.67 5.86549144420642
2019-Jul-10 00:00 00 58 03.80 +14 46 29.9 14.61 5.71217598204963
2019-Jul-20 00:00 01 00 04.23 +15 17 31.1 14.55 5.55837280509399
2019-Jul-30 00:00 01 01 03.99 +15 43 01.1 14.49 5.40772593660384
2019-Aug-09 00:00 01 00 59.78 +16 02 16.3 14.44 5.26437200804433
2019-Aug-19 00:00 00 59 51.35 +16 14 41.1 14.38 5.13268767710734
2019-Aug-29 00:00 00 57 40.96 +16 19 47.8 14.33 5.01683178119925
2019-Sep-08 00:00 00 54 34.45 +16 17 18.8 14.29 4.92114924641553
2019-Sep-18 00:00 00 50 42.62 +16 07 25.9 14.26 4.84943573519084
2019-Sep-28 00:00 00 46 19.30 +15 50 45.5 14.24 4.80470345308735
2019-Oct-08 00:00 00 41 41.92 +15 28 25.4 14.23 4.78931005183968
2019-Oct-18 00:00 00 37 09.79 +15 02 09.7 14.24 4.80410429378592
2019-Oct-28 00:00 00 33 01.10 +14 33 56.9 14.26 4.84873286539404
2019-Nov-07 00:00 00 29 32.80 +14 05 58.4 14.29 4.92169641097802
2019-Nov-17 00:00 00 26 57.99 +13 40 21.8 14.34 5.02000563746484
2019-Nov-27 00:00 00 25 25.23 +13 18 50.9 14.39 5.14003995862793
2019-Dec-07 00:00 00 24 59.75 +13 02 50.9 14.45 5.27749354856005
2019-Dec-17 00:00 00 25 42.33 +12 53 16.3 14.51 5.42752409901025
2019-Dec-27 00:00 00 27 31.04 +12 50 32.7 14.57 5.58554224287385
2020-Jan-06 00:00 00 30 22.35 +12 54 49.0 14.63 5.74683745276139
(continued)
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2020-Jan-16 00:00 00 34 10.63 +13 05 51.6 14.69 5.90695971083114
2020-Jan-26 00:00 00 38 50.09 +13 23 14.8 14.75 6.06209082914147
2020-Feb-05 00:00 00 44 14.69 +13 46 28.1 14.80 6.20851264233355
2020-Feb-15 00:00 00 50 17.87 +14 14 50.5 14.85 6.34313194410404
2020-Feb-25 00:00 00 56 53.93 +14 47 42.1 14.89 6.46344267162781
2020-Mar-06 00:00 01 03 57.18 +15 24 22.9 14.93 6.56709328063386
2020-Mar-16 00:00 01 11 21.95 +16 04 09.5 14.96 6.65246011428946
2020-Mar-26 00:00 01 19 03.56 +16 46 24.9 14.98 6.71829343255879
2020-Apr-05 00:00 01 26 56.99 +17 30 32.0 14.99 6.76353912219234
2020-Apr-15 00:00 01 34 57.50 +18 15 54.6 15.00 6.78783847595220
2020-Apr-25 00:00 01 43 00.92 +19 02 03.2 15.00 6.79097722802683
2020-May-05 00:00 01 51 02.45 +19 48 27.7 15.00 6.77301533003435
2020-May-15 00:00 01 58 57.59 +20 34 40.5 14.99 6.73460600480925
2020-May-25 00:00 02 06 41.89 +21 20 19.7 14.97 6.67639267654750
2020-Jun-04 00:00 02 14 10.06 +22 05 01.2 14.94 6.59941645499964
2020-Jun-14 00:00 02 21 17.12 +22 48 24.8 14.91 6.50518161066363
2020-Jun-24 00:00 02 27 57.56 +23 30 12.9 14.88 6.39515841678850
2020-Jul-04 00:00 02 34 05.07 +24 10 04.1 14.84 6.27136686049262
2020-Jul-14 00:00 02 39 33.70 +24 47 40.9 14.79 6.13616040417003
2020-Jul-24 00:00 02 44 16.68 +25 22 43.2 14.74 5.99197245622434
2020-Aug-03 00:00 02 48 07.03 +25 54 45.5 14.69 5.84191634457911
2020-Aug-13 00:00 02 50 58.59 +26 23 23.3 14.63 5.68930899313647
2020-Aug-23 00:00 02 52 45.06 +26 48 04.4 14.57 5.53772192014994
2020-Sep-02 00:00 02 53 21.75 +27 08 10.6 14.51 5.39137852889987
2020-Sep-12 00:00 02 52 46.49 +27 23 04.3 14.46 5.25447258220011
2020-Sep-22 00:00 02 50 59.35 +27 32 01.7 14.41 5.13143430196927
2020-Oct-02 00:00 02 48 05.32 +27 34 26.3 14.36 5.02686477685034
2020-Oct-12 00:00 02 44 13.95 +27 29 56.7 14.33 4.94475281645289
2020-Oct-22 00:00 02 39 39.17 +27 18 28.6 14.31 4.88877134973576
2020-Nov-01 00:00 02 34 40.10 +27 00 34.8 14.30 4.86169755742840
2020-Nov-11 00:00 02 29 37.72 +26 37 21.6 14.30 4.86490680970364
2020-Nov-21 00:00 02 24 53.46 +26 10 24.0 14.31 4.89876197737111
2020-Dec-01 00:00 02 20 47.62 +25 41 45.4 14.34 4.96201413401705
2020-Dec-11 00:00 02 17 35.75 +25 13 30.2 14.38 5.05210395565518
2020-Dec-21 00:00 02 15 29.35 +24 47 34.6 14.43 5.16569079448045
2020-Dec-31 00:00 02 14 35.12 +24 25 37.5 14.49 5.29834946313435
2021-Jan-10 00:00 02 14 54.68 +24 08 43.8 14.55 5.44540758619642
2021-Jan-20 00:00 02 16 27.10 +23 57 33.9 14.61 5.60214647110131
2021-Jan-30 00:00 02 19 08.56 +23 52 22.6 14.68 5.76363157018511
2021-Feb-09 00:00 02 22 53.41 +23 52 59.2 14.74 5.92549911379348
(continued)
200 Chapter 14
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2021-Feb-19 00:00 02 27 35.94 +23 59 03.5 14.80 6.08365597665387
2021-Mar-01 00:00 02 33 09.36 +24 10 01.7 14.85 6.23427776661554
2021-Mar-11 00:00 02 39 27.10 +24 25 13.3 14.90 6.37433621994549
2021-Mar-21 00:00 02 46 23.22 +24 43 59.6 14.94 6.50101821244620
2021-Mar-31 00:00 02 53 51.32 +25 05 37.2 14.98 6.61197862841275
2021-Apr-10 00:00 03 01 45.85 +25 29 26.2 15.01 6.70556498778417
2021-Apr-20 00:00 03 10 01.58 +25 54 51.3 15.04 6.78020606337040
2021-Apr-30 00:00 03 18 32.96 +26 21 16.8 15.06 6.83488420809146
2021-May-10 00:00 03 27 15.28 +26 48 13.7 15.07 6.86905433942545
2021-May-20 00:00 03 36 03.63 +27 15 17.2 15.07 6.88219197027530
2021-May-30 00:00 03 44 52.79 +27 42 03.9 15.07 6.87436730840537
2021-Jun-09 00:00 03 53 38.16 +28 08 17.8 15.07 6.84589744449091
2021-Jun-19 00:00 04 02 14.43 +28 33 45.5 15.05 6.79717802211274
2021-Jun-29 00:00 04 10 36.06 +28 58 15.8 15.03 6.72921671107881
2021-Jul-09 00:00 04 18 37.79 +29 21 44.1 15.00 6.64310427353235
2021-Jul-19 00:00 04 26 13.25 +29 44 06.5 14.97 6.54017918387553
2021-Jul-29 00:00 04 33 16.07 +30 05 21.1 14.93 6.42238680830129
2021-Aug-08 00:00 04 39 39.76 +30 25 29.9 14.89 6.29169818530424
2021-Aug-18 00:00 04 45 16.72 +30 44 32.3 14.84 6.15056834517179
2021-Aug-28 00:00 04 49 59.86 +31 02 27.5 14.79 6.00201131201137
2021-Sep-07 00:00 04 53 41.92 +31 19 12.5 14.74 5.84911344636664
2021-Sep-17 00:00 04 56 15.55 +31 34 36.1 14.68 5.69563800110431
2021-Sep-27 00:00 04 57 35.30 +31 48 22.0 14.62 5.54572888669723
2021-Oct-07 00:00 04 57 36.90 +32 00 04.2 14.57 5.40361559657347
2021-Oct-17 00:00 04 56 18.88 +32 09 05.2 14.52 5.27408823539224
2021-Oct-27 00:00 04 53 44.56 +32 14 44.0 14.47 5.16177498544782
2021-Nov-06 00:00 04 50 01.22 +32 16 16.0 14.44 5.07103398322532
2021-Nov-16 00:00 04 45 22.20 +32 13 03.7 14.41 5.00600606769519
2021-Nov-26 00:00 04 40 06.32 +32 04 51.0 14.40 4.96964518568833
2021-Dec-06 00:00 04 34 35.27 +31 51 45.0 14.39 4.96389969581918
2021-Dec-16 00:00 04 29 13.42 +31 34 26.7 14.41 4.98946947304919
2021-Dec-26 00:00 04 24 23.62 +31 14 05.7 14.43 5.04527619620727
2022-Jan-05 00:00 04 20 24.93 +30 52 06.2 14.47 5.12918551792172
2022-Jan-15 00:00 04 17 32.45 +30 30 00.2 14.52 5.23782202092015
2022-Jan-25 00:00 04 15 54.87 +30 09 08.3 14.57 5.36681346326822
2022-Feb-04 00:00 04 15 36.02 +29 50 32.1 14.63 5.51162924885062
2022-Feb-14 00:00 04 16 36.10 +29 34 54.2 14.69 5.66727713697492
2022-Feb-24 00:00 04 18 51.29 +29 22 32.0 14.76 5.82888269795600
2022-Mar-06 00:00 04 22 16.44 +29 13 25.6 14.82 5.99205332587057
2022-Mar-16 00:00 04 26 45.18 +29 07 22.5 14.88 6.15242496135069
(continued)
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2022-Mar-26 00:00 04 32 10.03 +29 03 57.5 14.93 6.30629860310905
2022-Apr-05 00:00 04 38 24.18 +29 02 42.8 14.98 6.45049600894955
2022-Apr-15 00:00 04 45 20.51 +29 03 07.5 15.03 6.58201691185001
2022-Apr-25 00:00 04 52 51.96 +29 04 39.6 15.07 6.69863229656561
2022-May-05 00:00 05 00 52.54 +29 06 51.6 15.10 6.79841212724331
2022-May-15 00:00 05 09 15.86 +29 09 17.3 15.13 6.87967296355708
2022-May-25 00:00 05 17 55.99 +29 11 34.3 15.15 6.94142255797284
2022-Jun-04 00:00 05 26 47.74 +29 13 26.1 15.16 6.98274322216965
2022-Jun-14 00:00 05 35 45.28 +29 14 39.1 15.17 7.00306075101258
2022-Jun-24 00:00 05 44 43.45 +29 15 05.1 15.17 7.00235011793353
2022-Jul-04 00:00 05 53 37.18 +29 14 40.8 15.17 6.98054574518103
2022-Jul-14 00:00 06 02 20.75 +29 13 26.9 15.16 6.93805788167326
2022-Jul-24 00:00 06 10 49.07 +29 11 28.7 15.14 6.87569705737177
2022-Aug-03 00:00 06 18 56.56 +29 08 56.0 15.11 6.79426679386180
2022-Aug-13 00:00 06 26 37.07 +29 06 01.8 15.08 6.69519014381222
2022-Aug-23 00:00 06 33 44.96 +29 03 02.6 15.05 6.58016837308834
2022-Sep-02 00:00 06 40 13.66 +29 00 17.5 15.01 6.45107113084198
2022-Sep-12 00:00 06 45 56.36 +28 58 06.5 14.96 6.31050329835599
2022-Sep-22 00:00 06 50 46.69 +28 56 49.6 14.91 6.16126693207069
2022-Oct-02 00:00 06 54 37.45 +28 56 44.5 14.85 6.00657872843199
2022-Oct-12 00:00 06 57 22.23 +28 58 04.0 14.80 5.85038772834120
2022-Oct-22 00:00 06 58 55.65 +29 00 52.9 14.74 5.69673713247792
2022-Nov-01 00:00 06 59 13.08 +29 05 05.6 14.69 5.55019296448394
2022-Nov-11 00:00 06 58 13.11 +29 10 22.2 14.64 5.41570295949510
2022-Nov-21 00:00 06 55 57.54 +29 16 09.4 14.59 5.29794586114728
2022-Dec-01 00:00 06 52 32.07 +29 21 41.2 14.55 5.20170533468297
2022-Dec-11 00:00 06 48 08.57 +29 26 03.5 14.52 5.13116664248394
2022-Dec-21 00:00 06 43 03.09 +29 28 24.4 14.51 5.08945350672846
2022-Dec-31 00:00 06 37 35.98 +29 28 02.4 14.50 5.07884262328663
2023-Jan-10 00:00 06 32 10.58 +29 24 35.0 14.52 5.09992186679513
2023-Jan-20 00:00 06 27 09.01 +29 18 03.3 14.54 5.15182279877516
2023-Jan-30 00:00 06 22 51.61 +29 08 48.1 14.57 5.23250990368860
2023-Feb-09 00:00 06 19 34.40 +28 57 24.6 14.62 5.33842526000004
2023-Feb-19 00:00 06 17 27.42 +28 44 32.2 14.67 5.46540969768864
2023-Mar-01 00:00 06 16 36.58 +28 30 47.1 14.73 5.60883547493246
2023-Mar-11 00:00 06 17 02.70 +28 16 37.0 14.79 5.76361461087173
2023-Mar-21 00:00 06 18 43.02 +28 02 18.6 14.85 5.92507306451738
2023-Mar-31 00:00 06 21 33.21 +27 47 58.5 14.91 6.08861647707639
2023-Apr-10 00:00 06 25 26.57 +27 33 34.8 14.97 6.24991988166906
2023-Apr-20 00:00 06 30 16.02 +27 18 59.8 15.03 6.40540264210030
(continued)
202 Chapter 14
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2023-Apr-30 00:00 06 35 54.57 +27 04 02.3 15.08 6.55163054095924
2023-May-10 00:00 06 42 14.51 +26 48 29.7 15.12 6.68571458358826
2023-May-20 00:00 06 49 09.06 +26 32 10.2 15.16 6.80539008844487
2023-May-30 00:00 06 56 31.65 +26 14 53.0 15.20 6.90846007763263
2023-Jun-09 00:00 07 04 15.63 +25 56 30.8 15.22 6.99335233846847
2023-Jun-19 00:00 07 12 15.44 +25 36 58.5 15.25 7.05887219907184
2023-Jun-29 00:00 07 20 25.37 +25 16 15.0 15.26 7.10388485895886
2023-Jul-09 00:00 07 28 39.84 +24 54 23.0 15.27 7.12789185574033
2023-Jul-19 00:00 07 36 54.11 +24 31 28.2 15.27 7.13055295199007
2023-Jul-29 00:00 07 45 02.91 +24 07 41.1 15.27 7.11169845955667
2023-Aug-08 00:00 07 53 01.20 +23 43 15.8 15.26 7.07177637477816
2023-Aug-18 00:00 08 00 44.33 +23 18 29.0 15.24 7.01126967391840
2023-Aug-28 00:00 08 08 06.84 +22 53 43.0 15.22 6.93103591320611
2023-Sep-07 00:00 08 15 03.64 +22 29 22.3 15.19 6.83251314955629
2023-Sep-17 00:00 08 21 29.45 +22 05 53.8 15.15 6.71717929335904
2023-Sep-27 00:00 08 27 18.21 +21 43 49.3 15.11 6.58712835744815
2023-Oct-07 00:00 08 32 24.34 +21 23 39.8 15.06 6.44497269071139
2023-Oct-17 00:00 08 36 41.79 +21 05 57.7 15.01 6.29348317462580
2023-Oct-27 00:00 08 40 04.29 +20 51 15.6 14.96 6.13622727258625
2023-Nov-06 00:00 08 42 26.63 +20 39 59.6 14.90 5.97714583103720
2023-Nov-16 00:00 08 43 43.74 +20 32 31.3 14.85 5.82044624064297
2023-Nov-26 00:00 08 43 52.08 +20 29 02.2 14.79 5.67103868105731
2023-Dec-06 00:00 08 42 50.86 +20 29 27.7 14.74 5.53379304700930
2023-Dec-16 00:00 08 40 41.54 +20 33 29.7 14.70 5.41362788019294
2023-Dec-26 00:00 08 37 30.07 +20 40 30.4 14.66 5.31545771796680
2024-Jan-05 00:00 08 33 26.84 +20 49 34.6 14.63 5.24326730100546
2024-Jan-15 00:00 08 28 45.89 +20 59 39.1 14.61 5.20034263354862
2024-Jan-25 00:00 08 23 45.72 +21 09 33.0 14.61 5.18878588621308
2024-Feb-04 00:00 08 18 46.24 +21 18 11.9 14.62 5.20897791005690
2024-Feb-14 00:00 08 14 07.12 +21 24 44.5 14.64 5.26015185408941
2024-Feb-24 00:00 08 10 06.77 +21 28 32.5 14.67 5.33998592214511
2024-Mar-05 00:00 08 06 59.07 +21 29 16.5 14.72 5.44494010841842
2024-Mar-15 00:00 08 04 53.86 +21 26 49.3 14.77 5.57097653799454
2024-Mar-25 00:00 08 03 56.79 +21 21 10.8 14.83 5.71326969592828
2024-Apr-04 00:00 08 04 08.72 +21 12 28.4 14.88 5.86697422427542
2024-Apr-14 00:00 08 05 28.11 +21 00 48.8 14.94 6.02748169573870
2024-Apr-24 00:00 08 07 50.92 +20 46 18.5 15.00 6.19010172768022
2024-May-04 00:00 08 11 11.26 +20 29 05.0 15.06 6.35079601046108
2024-May-14 00:00 08 15 23.21 +20 09 12.4 15.11 6.50589751851913
2024-May-24 00:00 08 20 19.94 +19 46 45.7 15.16 6.65194129528569
(continued)
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2024-Jun-03 00:00 08 25 54.67 +19 21 51.0 15.21 6.78622845397360
2024-Jun-13 00:00 08 32 01.36 +18 54 32.5 15.25 6.90625507185961
2024-Jun-23 00:00 08 38 33.57 +18 24 58.2 15.28 7.00984444216560
2024-Jul-03 00:00 08 45 25.60 +17 53 16.9 15.31 7.09546756087998
2024-Jul-13 00:00 08 52 32.28 +17 19 37.7 15.33 7.16161763199010
2024-Jul-23 00:00 08 59 48.13 +16 44 14.8 15.34 7.20723277483316
2024-Aug-02 00:00 09 07 08.49 +16 07 22.4 15.35 7.23172607218574
2024-Aug-12 00:00 09 14 28.74 +15 29 17.3 15.36 7.23448809304674
2024-Aug-22 00:00 09 21 43.96 +14 50 21.0 15.35 7.21548154320342
2024-Sep-01 00:00 09 28 49.88 +14 10 54.7 15.34 7.17498994490327
2024-Sep-11 00:00 09 35 41.77 +13 31 24.0 15.32 7.11338028192211
2024-Sep-21 00:00 09 42 14.65 +12 52 18.6 15.30 7.03170565328906
2024-Oct-01 00:00 09 48 23.94 +12 14 07.4 15.27 6.93123899531671
2024-Oct-11 00:00 09 54 04.20 +11 37 25.5 15.23 6.81356197188567
2024-Oct-21 00:00 09 59 10.02 +11 02 49.6 15.19 6.68100898648279
2024-Oct-31 00:00 10 03 36.11 +10 30 55.8 15.14 6.53609237182412
2024-Nov-10 00:00 10 07 16.48 +10 02 25.4 15.09 6.38189052486838
2024-Nov-20 00:00 10 10 05.78 +09 37 56.5 15.04 6.22218309009431
2024-Nov-30 00:00 10 11 59.10 +09 18 04.5 14.98 6.06088395560711
2024-Dec-10 00:00 10 12 51.98 +09 03 23.3 14.93 5.90257562027040
2024-Dec-20 00:00 10 12 42.17 +08 54 13.8 14.87 5.75220241248149
2024-Dec-30 00:00 10 11 29.25 +08 50 46.6 14.82 5.61459874249007
2025-Jan-09 00:00 10 09 15.68 +08 52 57.4 14.77 5.49489058296700
2025-Jan-19 00:00 10 06 08.19 +09 00 16.8 14.74 5.39770421023021
2025-Jan-29 00:00 10 02 16.60 +09 11 59.2 14.71 5.32690233953329
2025-Feb-08 00:00 09 57 54.77 +09 26 57.9 14.69 5.28567933503666
2025-Feb-18 00:00 09 53 19.55 +09 43 48.8 14.69 5.27565113410493
2025-Feb-28 00:00 09 48 48.32 +10 01 06.7 14.70 5.29713718629079
2025-Mar-10 00:00 09 44 38.74 +10 17 24.3 14.72 5.34917837744414
2025-Mar-20 00:00 09 41 06.12 +10 31 24.9 14.75 5.42917706423744
2025-Mar-30 00:00 09 38 22.07 +10 42 10.4 14.80 5.53379012850076
2025-Apr-09 00:00 09 36 35.15 +10 48 54.3 14.85 5.65887987883844
2025-Apr-19 00:00 09 35 49.38 +10 51 09.9 14.90 5.79969516260535
2025-Apr-29 00:00 09 36 05.58 +10 48 44.3 14.96 5.95170004231656
2025-May-09 00:00 09 37 22.41 +10 41 31.2 15.01 6.11019971736316
2025-May-19 00:00 09 39 35.89 +10 29 36.8 15.07 6.27074574149056
2025-May-29 00:00 09 42 41.29 +10 13 10.0 15.13 6.42948067646349
2025-Jun-08 00:00 09 46 33.32 +09 52 21.9 15.18 6.58259372596965
2025-Jun-18 00:00 09 51 05.83 +09 27 30.1 15.23 6.72686563348102
2025-Jun-28 00:00 09 56 13.34 +08 58 50.0 15.27 6.85956437612261
(continued)
204 Chapter 14
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2025-Jul-08 00:00 10 01 50.22 +08 26 39.1 15.31 6.97802595532983
2025-Jul-18 00:00 10 07 50.87 +07 51 18.6 15.34 7.08025606697618
2025-Jul-28 00:00 10 14 10.52 +07 13 06.4 15.37 7.16451784428201
2025-Aug-07 00:00 10 20 44.16 +06 32 24.3 15.39 7.22920902797930
2025-Aug-17 00:00 10 27 27.07 +05 49 35.6 15.40 7.27337866456614
2025-Aug-27 00:00 10 34 15.08 +05 05 01.3 15.41 7.29615685840498
2025-Sep-06 00:00 10 41 03.53 +04 19 08.0 15.41 7.29696979748812
2025-Sep-16 00:00 10 47 48.09 +03 32 21.9 15.40 7.27584137752990
2025-Sep-26 00:00 10 54 24.52 +02 45 08.9 15.39 7.23281834883897
2025-Oct-06 00:00 11 00 47.93 +01 58 01.4 15.37 7.16846387612522
2025-Oct-16 00:00 11 06 53.75 +01 11 29.7 15.35 7.08387046803300
2025-Oct-26 00:00 11 12 37.01 +00 26 07.0 15.31 6.98022396665122
2025-Nov-05 00:00 11 17 52.15 −00 17 28.3 15.28 6.85943823661197
2025-Nov-15 00:00 11 22 33.98 −00 58 40.3 15.23 6.72386904024402
2025-Nov-25 00:00 11 26 36.69 −01 36 48.0 15.19 6.57612512398284
2025-Dec-05 00:00 11 29 54.45 −02 11 08.3 15.13 6.41965059433609
2025-Dec-15 00:00 11 32 22.18 −02 41 01.7 15.08 6.25817949520404
2025-Dec-25 00:00 11 33 54.79 −03 05 44.8 15.02 6.09582625218984
2026-Jan-04 00:00 11 34 28.65 −03 24 39.3 14.97 5.93738470556638
2026-Jan-14 00:00 11 34 02.14 −03 37 16.0 14.91 5.78759570365075
2026-Jan-24 00:00 11 32 35.46 −03 43 11.1 14.86 5.65142535408770
2026-Feb-03 00:00 11 30 12.54 −03 42 20.9 14.81 5.53386522990941
2026-Feb-13 00:00 11 27 00.70 −03 35 01.9 14.78 5.43915996905572
2026-Feb-23 00:00 11 23 10.49 −03 21 50.1 14.75 5.37113323929015
2026-Mar-05 00:00 11 18 56.35 −03 03 53.0 14.74 5.33254182437587
2026-Mar-15 00:00 11 14 34.17 −02 42 35.0 14.73 5.32468236158306
2026-Mar-25 00:00 11 10 20.58 −02 19 34.3 14.74 5.34782955350846
2026-Apr-04 00:00 11 06 31.77 −01 56 39.5 14.76 5.40064823876690
2026-Apr-14 00:00 11 03 20.78 −01 35 27.2 14.80 5.48060798781028
2026-Apr-24 00:00 11 00 58.00 −01 17 23.9 14.84 5.58446982766852
2026-May-04 00:00 10 59 30.25 −01 03 39.2 14.88 5.70798849377288
2026-May-14 00:00 10 59 00.43 −00 54 57.4 14.94 5.84677893638502
2026-May-24 00:00 10 59 29.25 −00 51 49.0 14.99 5.99639887793295
2026-Jun-03 00:00 11 00 54.77 −00 54 26.3 15.05 6.15219882574610
2026-Jun-13 00:00 11 03 13.34 −01 02 46.5 15.10 6.31008722748804
2026-Jun-23 00:00 11 06 20.93 −01 16 42.4 15.16 6.46613154330963
2026-Jul-03 00:00 11 10 12.31 −01 35 55.6 15.21 6.61661190850514
2026-Jul-13 00:00 11 14 42.34 −02 00 04.4 15.25 6.75849439941972
2026-Jul-23 00:00 11 19 46.14 −02 28 47.1 15.29 6.88882219797800
2026-Aug-02 00:00 11 25 18.37 −03 01 35.5 15.33 7.00504826589862
(continued)
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2026-Aug-12 00:00 11 31 14.35 −03 38 03.6 15.36 7.10517955666682
2026-Aug-22 00:00 11 37 29.59 −04 17 45.3 15.39 7.18721835169893
2026-Sep-01 00:00 11 43 59.30 −05 00 10.3 15.41 7.24971266711853
2026-Sep-11 00:00 11 50 39.41 −05 44 52.4 15.42 7.29158628871884
2026-Sep-21 00:00 11 57 25.57 −06 31 23.1 15.42 7.31180028789014
2026-Oct-01 00:00 12 04 13.26 −07 19 11.7 15.42 7.30997115712676
2026-Oct-11 00:00 12 10 58.37 −08 07 51.3 15.42 7.28595336597785
2026-Oct-21 00:00 12 17 36.13 −08 56 50.5 15.40 7.23981012901893
2026-Oct-31 00:00 12 24 01.65 −09 45 37.8 15.38 7.17232779013305
2026-Nov-10 00:00 12 30 10.12 −10 33 43.8 15.36 7.08445931929632
2026-Nov-20 00:00 12 35 55.85 −11 20 33.4 15.32 6.97761183495473
2026-Nov-30 00:00 12 41 13.17 −12 05 32.8 15.28 6.85390993705261
2026-Dec-10 00:00 12 45 56.31 −12 48 07.7 15.24 6.71562948300923
2026-Dec-20 00:00 12 49 58.77 −13 27 38.3 15.19 6.56571961439481
2026-Dec-30 00:00 12 53 14.74 −14 03 26.9 15.14 6.40771931629198
2027-Jan-09 00:00 12 55 38.49 −14 34 53.4 15.08 6.24530732517769
2027-Jan-19 00:00 12 57 04.82 −15 01 14.2 15.02 6.08288152774836
2027-Jan-29 00:00 12 57 30.56 −15 21 51.5 14.97 5.92508854152235
2027-Feb-08 00:00 12 56 54.00 −15 36 07.6 14.91 5.77657265948219
2027-Feb-18 00:00 12 55 16.27 −15 43 32.1 14.86 5.64235121579244
2027-Feb-28 00:00 12 52 42.42 −15 43 52.1 14.81 5.52699778407545
2027-Mar-10 00:00 12 49 20.39 −15 37 08.4 14.78 5.43462888893332
2027-Mar-20 00:00 12 45 22.32 −15 23 49.2 14.75 5.36887986139328
2027-Mar-30 00:00 12 41 03.37 −15 04 51.8 14.74 5.33204298416956
2027-Apr-09 00:00 12 36 39.78 −14 41 34.4 14.73 5.32542705200399
2027-Apr-19 00:00 12 32 28.79 −14 15 40.9 14.74 5.34910174334911
2027-Apr-29 00:00 12 28 45.80 −13 49 03.3 14.76 5.40157661953338
2027-May-09 00:00 12 25 43.40 −13 23 30.0 14.79 5.48058114756032
2027-May-19 00:00 12 23 31.51 −13 00 43.6 14.83 5.58278835692910
2027-May-29 00:00 12 22 15.73 −12 42 03.2 14.88 5.70414705105391
2027-Jun-08 00:00 12 21 58.80 −12 28 27.3 14.93 5.84057235099714
2027-Jun-18 00:00 12 22 41.04 −12 20 35.9 14.98 5.98754814954331
2027-Jun-28 00:00 12 24 20.05 −12 18 43.9 15.04 6.14073624314199
2027-Jul-08 00:00 12 26 52.70 −12 22 54.5 15.09 6.29615510927267
2027-Jul-18 00:00 12 30 14.80 −12 32 58.7 15.15 6.44975370172538
2027-Jul-28 00:00 12 34 21.38 −12 48 35.1 15.19 6.59807217618796
2027-Aug-07 00:00 12 39 07.92 −13 09 21.3 15.24 6.73795985769169
2027-Aug-17 00:00 12 44 29.43 −13 34 48.1 15.28 6.86635283452659
2027-Aug-27 00:00 12 50 21.03 −14 04 23.6 15.31 6.98086199364501
2027-Sep-06 00:00 12 56 38.43 −14 37 38.6 15.34 7.07923701122320
(continued)
206 Chapter 14
Date RA Dec. P Δ
2027-Sep-16 00:00 13 03 16.86 −15 13 59.4 15.37 7.15946475701858
2027-Sep-26 00:00 13 10 11.95 −15 52 54.2 15.39 7.22016194870621
2027-Oct-06 00:00 13 17 19.56 −16 33 53.5 15.40 7.25997979640094
2027-Oct-16 00:00 13 24 34.92 −17 16 24.5 15.40 7.27800560042815
2027-Oct-26 00:00 13 31 53.65 −17 59 58.4 15.40 7.27387210622227
2027-Nov-05 00:00 13 39 11.13 −18 44 06.9 15.39 7.24726225585232
2027-Nov-15 00:00 13 46 22.01 −19 28 20.0 15.38 7.19850280073016
2027-Nov-25 00:00 13 53 21.27 −20 12 11.7 15.36 7.12836721291342
2027-Dec-05 00:00 14 00 03.13 −20 55 15.3 15.33 7.03779918234327
2027-Dec-15 00:00 14 06 21.30 −21 37 03.0 15.29 6.92853021924343
2027-Dec-25 00:00 14 12 09.69 −22 17 10.6 15.25 6.80262119924166
Some Prominent Visual Comet Discoverers 207
CHAPTER 15
SOME PROMINENT VISUAL COMET DISCOVERERS
The thought of finding a comet that nobody else has seen is a thrilling one,
especially as this also means that one’s name will also be officially given to
that object and will remain in the catalogs of cometary apparitions long after
the comet itself has faded from view. These ambitions have drawn astrono-
mers to the gentle sport of visual comet hunting for over two centuries, and
happily, despite the growth of automated sky patrols using relatively large
telescopes fitted with CCD technology, the tradition continues today.
The following is a sample of the better known visual comet discoverers

from the earliest days of comet hunting until the present time. These are
not the only ones of course, but theirs are the names that stand out in any
catalogue of comet discoveries. We hope that by pondering the success of
these folk, others will be inspired to follow in their footsteps and keep the
visual discoveries coming!
The Pioneer Comet Hunters
Charles Messier (1730–1817)
Visual comet hunting began in earnest with the famous French astronomer
Charles Messier (Fig. 15.1), even though this observer is better known
today for his list of comet-like deep-sky objects that he compiled as
“objects to be avoided” by comet hunters!
Messier began his systematic search for comets in 1757 and made his first
discovery on August 14, 1758. Alas, that comet had already been spotted
by another observer, but in 1760 Messier found another that was later
officially accredited to him. Altogether, he found a total of 13 comets, the

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_15
208 Chapter 15
Fig. 15.1 Charles Messier circa 1770. Portrait by Ansiaume (1729–1786).

(Image from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Charles_Messier.jpg)
most spectacular being 1769 P1, which became a conspicuous naked-eye

object and at one time sported a tail that could be traced for some 90° with
the unaided eye.
Altogether, Messier is credited with the discovery of the following 13

comets:
C/ 1760 B1 (Messier)
C/1763 S1 (Messier)
C/1764 A1 (Messier)
C/769 P1 (Messier—also known as the Great Comet of 1769)
D/1770 L1 (Lexell)
C/1771 G1 (Messier)
C/1773 T1 (Messier)
C/1780 U2 (Messier)
C/1785 A1 (Messier-Mechain)
C/1788 W1 (Messier)
C/1793 S2 (Messier)
C/1798 G1 (Messier)
You probably noticed that the comet 1770 L1 is not known by Messier’s
name. Although he discovered this object, it was Anders Johan Lexell who
found that it was moving in a short-period orbit of just 5.6 years, the short-
est period known for any comet at that time. Moreover, Lexell found that
this orbit was only temporary. The comet had previously followed an
ellipse with a period of around 11 years, but in 1767 had passed close to
Jupiter and had its orbit dramatically altered, bringing it unusually close to
Earth in 1770. In fact, it passed our planet at just 6 times the Moon’s dis-
tance! Lexell also found that the comet would again pass close to Jupiter in
1779, at which time its orbit would be so dramatically changed that the
aphelion of its former orbit would become the perihelion of its new one,
and the orbital period would be greatly increased. The new period has
been calculated as about 174 years, so the comet may have returned
around 1944, but with a perihelion out near Jupiter’s orbit, it would have
remained very faint.
In recognition of Lexell’s work, the comet was named for him, joining com-
ets Halley, Encke and Crommelin as objects named for the persons who
determined their orbits rather than for their discoverers.
Pierre Mechain (1744–1804)
Messier’s younger contemporary, Pierre Mechain, became his principal

rival in the comet-discovery business during the latter years of the eight-
eenth century.
Mechain began work as assistant hydrographer with the Naval Depot of

Maps and Charts at Versailles, and it was during this time that he met
Messier. They met in the year 1774 and became instant friends, though
later rivals when it came to finding comets! That year also saw the publica-
tion of Mechain’s first paper on an astronomical topic—an occultation of
the star Aldebaran by the Moon. In 1799, Mechain became director of the
Paris Observatory (Fig. 15.2).
210 Chapter 15
Fig. 15.2 Pierre Mechain. (Image from Wikemedia Commons. https://com-

mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_mechain.jpg)
His comet searching career was not quite as successful as that of Messier.
However, his name has been given to the following comets:
C/1781 M1 (Mechain)
C/1781 T1 (Mechain)
C/1785 A1 (Messier-Mechain)
C/1785 E1 (Mechain)
C/1787 G1 (Mechain)
C/1799 P1 (Mechain)
C/1799 Y1 (Mechain)
It is interesting to note that Mechain discovered two comets in three of his
most successful years, something that even Messier did not manage to do.
In addition to the comets named for him, Mechain also discovered two
further ones that were later found to be of short period and now bear the
name of, in one instance, the later discoverer and, in the other, that of the
mathematician who discovered the object’s periodicity. The comets in
question are 2P/Encke (discovered by Mechain in 1786) and 8P/Tuttle,
which he found in 1790. Mechain also co-discovered C/1793 A1, sometimes
listed as Gregory-Mechain but now officially known simply as C/1793 A1
(Gregory), and was one of four co-discoverers of C/1801 N1 (Pons).
Caroline Herschel (1750–1848)
Caroline Herschel was the sister of William Herschel, discoverer of the

planet Uranus, and assisted him in both his musical and astronomical
endeavors. A pioneer for women’s involvement in science and the arts, she
became the first woman to be awarded a Gold Medal of the Royal
Astronomical Society (in 1828) and to be named, together with Mary
Somerville, as an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society in
1835. In 1838, she was made an honorary member of the Royal Irish
Academy, and on her ninety-sixth birthday in 1846 was presented with a
Gold Medal for Science by the King of Prussia (Figs. 15.3 and 15.4).
She also became the first woman in recorded history to discover a comet
and, indeed, rivaled the famous French comet discoverers of her day,
Messier and Mechain, with her name given to six comets. Her named
discoveries were:
C/1786 P1 (Herschel)
C/1788 Y1 = 35P/Herschel-Rigollet
C/1790 A1 (Herschel)
Fig. 15.3 Caroline Herschel in 1829. Portrait by M. F. Tjelemanm. (Image

from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Herschel_Caroline_1829.jpg)
212 Chapter 15
Fig. 15.4 Caroline Herschel’s comet-hunting telescope, constructed by her

brother William. Photograph by “Geni.” (Image from Wikimedia Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caroline_Herschel%27s_
telescope.jpg)
C/1790 H1 (Herschel)
C/1791 X1 (Herschel)
C/1797 P1 (Bouvard-Herschel-Lee)
The last comet on this list was discovered with the naked eye as a relatively
bright object of the third magnitude on August 14 and just 2 days later
passed Earth at a distance of just 0.09 AU.
The object now known as 35P/Herschel-Rigollet, although apparently

moving along a parabolic orbit as determined in Herschel’s day, actually
has an elliptical orbit with a period of around 151 years and was rediscov-
ered by R. Rigollet during its next return in 1939.
In addition to the comets named in her honor, Caroline Herschel also made
independent discoveries of comets C/1793 (Messier) and 2P/Encke in 1795.
Jean-Louis Pons (1761–1831)
Pons was, and remains, the most successful of all visual comet discoverers.
His total number of discoveries has been superseded, but only by observ-
ers relying upon non-visual means of discovery and whose finds, for that
very reason, include faint objects that neither Pons nor any other visual
observer could possibly have detected.
Pons began his career as a porter at the University of Marseilles, where he

was informally instructed in the use of the associated observatory’s tele-
scopes by the astronomers stationed there. He must have been a good
student, as he rose to become, first of all, assistant astronomer at the
Marseilles Observatory and then director of a new observatory established
at Tuscany. Unfortunately, that establishment proved not to be a success,
and Pons was transferred to another at Florence, where he was also given
the position of director.
He was especially interested in comets and sought them using a telescope

of relatively large aperture and wide field. Altogether, he seems to have
found as many as 37 comets, although several of these were prior discover-
ies by other people and were not named for him. He also “lost” a small
number. For instance, he discovered 2P/Encke on two occasions (in 1805
and 1818) before it was realized that these were two apparitions of the
same object. Another object that he discovered in 1818 was, over a century
later, shown to have been an apparition of a periodic comet discovered at
later returns by Coggia, Winnecke and Forbes. The mathematician who
214 Chapter 15
Fig. 15.5 Jean-Louis Pons. (Image from Wikimedia Commons. https://com-

mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pons_1.jpg)
discovered this linkage was A. C. D. Crommelin, after whom this comet is
now officially named. Also, three comets found by Pons in 1808 were insuf-
ficiently observed for confirming observations to be made and orbits com-
puted. Two of these are comets that “got away,” but the third has now been
identified as an early observation of 26P/Grigg-Skjellerup, extending that
comet’s arc of observation by about a century (Fig. 15.5).
The list of comets to which Pons’ name remains is as follows:
C/1801 N1 (Pons)
C/1802 Q1 (Pons)
C/1804 E1 (Pons)
C/1806 V1 (Pons)
C/1808 F1 (Pons)
C/1810 Q1 (Pons)
C/1811 W1 (Pons)
C/1812 Q1 = 12P/Pons-Brooks
C/1813 C1 (Pons)
C/1813 G1 (Pons)
C/1816 B1 (Pons)
C/1817 Y1 (Pons)
C/1818 W2 (Pons)
C/1819 L1 = 7P/Pons-Winnecke
C/1821 K1 (Pons)
C/1822 K1 (Pons)
C/1825 P1 (Pons)
C/1825 V1 (Pons)
C/1826 P1 (Pons)
C/1826 U1 (Pons)
C/1826 Y1 (Pons)
C/1827 M1 = 273P/Pons-Gambart
C/1827 P1 (Pons)
omet Hunters of the Later Nineteenth

C
and Early Twentieth Centuries
The early years of the nineteenth century was dominated by Pons, whose
remarkable success has not yet been equaled by other visual comet hunt-
ers. Nevertheless, perhaps inspired by the French observers as well as by
Caroline Herschel, many other observers came to join the ranks of success-
ful comet discoverers as the years of the century rolled on.
Outstanding among these comet discoverers were A. Borelly (1842–1926),

to whom 10 comets are accredited; L. Swift (1820–1913), who has his name
attached to 12 comets; F. Winnecke (1835–1897) with 10 named comets; M.
Giacobini (1873–1938), with 12 comets; C. D. Perrine (1867–1951) with 9;
and, W. Brooks (1844–1921), who came nearest to Pons’ total with a list of
21 comet discoveries.
Another prominent and very interesting comet discoverer of the latter years
of the nineteenth century was E. Barnard (1857–1923) (Fig. 15.6), who
seems to have been blessed with extraordinarily acute vision. He was one of
the relatively few people who could detect the moons of Jupiter without
using any optical aid and is said to have discovered comets that, at the time
he found them, could not be detected by others looking through his tele-
scope. Only as the comets became brighter could they be confirmed. He is
also the discoverer of the Gegenschein, which initially was mistaken for an
extremely diffuse comet passing exceedingly close to Earth!
216 Chapter 15
Fig. 15.6 E. E. Barnard. (Image from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.

wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EdwardEmersonBarnard.jpg)
Following the sighting of a comet in 1881, which he subsequently lost

because (at that time) he was not able to report it, Barnard set about to
systematically search for these objects and made 15 visual discoveries
between 1881 and 1891. A sixteenth comet was discovered in 1892,
though not by visual means. This was the first comet to be discovered pho-
tographically, if we except the object detected close to the Sun during the
total solar eclipse of May 17, 1882.
omet Hunters of the Late Twentieth

C
and Twenty-First Centuries
Visual comet hunting has also been carried on apace throughout the past
century. The most successful visual comet discoverers from about the time
of the First World War to the present day have been W. Bradfield (1927–
2014), who discovered 18 comets between 1972 and 2004; A. (“Tonda”)
Mrkos (1918–1996), who discovered 13 (11 of these by visual means and 2
photographically); M. Honda (1913–1990), who found 12 between 1940
and 1968; and L. Peltier (1900–1980), who discovered 12, of which 9
officially carry his name.
Of these comet sleuths, the New Zealand/Australian amateur Bill Bradfield

stands out, not only for his remarkable number of discoveries but for the fact
that none of these was shared with another observer. All of his comets bear
Bradfield’s name alone—a remarkable feat at any time, but especially so dur-
ing the decades in which he was observing. Bradfield employed a 6-in. (15-
cm) refractor and, later, a 10-in. (25-cm) reflector for his searches. He was also
in the habit of quickly scanning the twilight horizon with a pair of hand-held
binoculars just in case something bright was lingering down low in the twi-
light. On one occasion, after he had completed the main search for that
morning using his refractor, he spotted something in the binoculars that
looked a little different from a normal star and, switching back to the refrac-
tor, found it to be a sixth-magnitude comet with a short, bright tail!
The American amateur Leslie Peltier is another famous visual observer, not
only of comets but also of variable stars, where his skill and commitment were
truly remarkable. His instrument for comet sweeping was a 6-in. (15-cm)
refractor that had once been used by astronomer Zaccheus Daniel for the
same purpose. Daniel employed this telescope for the discovery of two com-
ets in 1907 (one of which became a relatively bright naked-eye object) and a
third in 1909. The latter turned out to be an object of short period, but gravi-
tational perturbations over the years have significantly increased its perihe-
lion distance, and it no longer becomes visually accessible to small telescopes.
In honor of Daniel’s discoveries, Peltier carved the designations of his comets
into the wooden tube of the telescope.
In addition to those who have made their name through the sheer number
of discoveries, two other names stand out for discovery statistics of a dif-
ferent kind.
An English observer, G. E. D. Alcock (1912–2000), initially used several

instruments to visually seek comets during the 1950s, though without suc-
cess. However, after coming into possession of a pair of 25 × 105 binocu-
lars, his fortune dramatically changed, and during the final week of August
1959 he discovered two new comets in quick succession, the first of mag-
nitude 10 at discovery and the second at magnitude 6. He continued on to
discover another in 1963 and a fourth in 1965, after which he turned his
time to visual nova hunting, experiencing remarkable success in that field
as well. During the course of his nova searches, however, in 1983, he dis-
covered his fifth comet—the famous IRAS-Araki-Alcock, which passed just
0.03 AU from Earth during its journey toward perihelion.
218 Chapter 15
Alcock’s double find in 1959, however, though remarkable, pales before

the amazing feat of Japanese amateur H. Mori, who found two unrelated
comets within the space of a mere 70 min on October 5, 1975. Some comet
hunters have expressed their amazement that he continued with the
night’s comet-sweeping program after his first discovery. These were Mori’s
only comet discoveries, making this incident even more remarkable!
Speaking of Japanese comet hunters, observers from that country led the
field throughout the 1960s, and some of these continue to engage in the
pursuit to this very day. Prominent among their number are K. Ikeya, who
discovered one comet each year in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 and has
recently reappeared on the scene again with further discoveries in 2002 and
2010. He is, perhaps, best known for his independent co-discovery with T.
Seki of the great sungrazing comet Ikeya-Seki of 1965. Seki himself, although
now mostly engaged in positional comet work, also gained considerable
fame as a successful visual comet hunter, finding comets in 1961, 1962, 1965,
1967 (two comets that year, one of them again shared with K. Ikeya) and
1970. Another prominent Japanese comet hunter is S. Fujikawa, who has 6
comets named for him, the first in 1969 and the most recent in 2002.
From the mid-1940s until 1960, astronomers at the Skalnate Pleso

Observatory in Czechoslovakia conducted a program of visual comet hunt-
ing using a pair of 25 × 100 binoculars. A total of 18 comets were discovered
by these observers, including three found by one of their number (Antonin
Mrkos) at the weather station on nearby Mount Lomnicky. Some of these
comets bear the names of more than one member of the team involved in
their discovery, and the various scores for the different team members are
Mrkos 11, L. Pajdusakova 5, L. Kresak 2, A. Becvar 1 and M. Vozarova 1.
Of the visual comet hunters still active in 2016, the most successful in terms
of comets bearing their names are the American observers Don Machholz,
whose discovery list currently stands at 11, the first having been found in
1978 and the most recent in 2010, and David Levy, whose string of comet
discoveries currently extends from 1984 until 2006. Machholz employed
several instruments—a 10-in. reflector, a pair of home-constructed large
binoculars and an 18-in. reflector for the 2010 discovery—but has always
used visual sweeping to make his discoveries. Levy, in addition to accom-
plishing a fine score of 7 visual discoveries, was at one time also involved
in the Shoemaker’s photographic patrol and, including these photographic
finds, has a grand total of 22 comets to his name.
The Kreutz Sungrazing Comet Group 219
CHAPTER 16
THE KREUTZ SUNGRAZING COMET GROUP: A SPECIAL

OPPORTUNITY FOR VISUAL COMET HUNTERS?
Toward the end of February 1843, people around the world were surprised
to see a short dagger-like object following the Sun toward the western hori-
zon (Fig. 16.1). During the following evenings, it emerged into the western
sky as one of the most spectacular of comets, initially brighter than Jupiter
and sporting an intense tail 60° long (Fig. 16.2). But it was not just its bril-
liance or spectacular appearance that set this object apart. Once the orbit
had been calculated, it was found to have passed an incredibly close
0.005 AU from the center of the Sun. At its closest approach, it was actually
closer to the solar photosphere than the tops of some of the prominences!
Some 37 years later, on February 1, 1880, a “gentleman in the northern part

of New South Wales” sighted a bright comet sporting a long tail in the
southwestern sky. During the following weeks, many observations of this
spectacular object were made from southern cites and an orbit duly calcu-
lated. Surprisingly, the orbit was almost identical with that of 1843! It
seemed as though the Great Comet of 1843 had returned, though with
somewhat less luster than it had at the earlier apparition. (There were no
daylight sightings in 1880 as far as we know.)
That seemed a logical conclusion, although it was strange that there were no
sightings in the early 1800s during its supposed previous apparition (about
1806 one would presume). Moreover, the calculated period of the 1843 object
ran into several hundreds of years, whereas that of the second one (not as
well determined as the first) was indistinguishable from a parabola. Assuming
that the orbit was actually elliptical, this proximity to a parabola implied that
it must also have had a period of at least several hundreds of years.
Then, in early September 1882, another bright comet was found, and a
preliminary orbital calculation again revealed a close similarity with those
calculations of 1843 and 1880. At first, it was suggested that the rapidly

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_16
220 Chapter 16
Fig. 16.1 Daylight view over Table Bay showing the Great Comet of 1843.
Painting by C. P. Smyth
decreasing period of the comet was probably caused by friction with the
solar atmosphere. However, more observations of the 1882 object left no
doubt that the true period was, once again, several hundreds of years.
Fig. 16.2 The Great Comet of 1843. Painting by W. Valentiner
Clearly these apparitions were not returns of a single comet. The comets
were different ones sharing very similar orbits. Presumably they represented
fragments of a single very large comet that broke up as it passed the Sun
during a previous perihelion passage. In apparent support of this hypothe-
sis, the Great Comet of 1882 was actually observed to break into several
pieces following perihelion. The two brightest of these appeared sufficiently
robust to return as separate comets several hundreds of years in the future.
As if to emphasize the fact that these really are different comets, another
similar object appeared in January 1887.
These so-called “sungrazing” comets were studied by H. Kreutz, who also

considered the bright object seen in 1668 to be a likely member of the
group (maybe even a previous apparition of 1843?), and, although no orbit
could be derived for it, another comet seen briefly in early 1702 was also
suspected of being another member of the group.
A faint and transitory member of the group was observed in 1945, but
interest in the “Kreutz group” (as it became known) was only truly revived
in the 1960s, following the appearance of Comet Pereyra in 1963 and, espe-
cially, the brilliant daylight Ikeya-Seki 2 years later. Another Kreutz sun-
grazer—Comet White-Ortiz-Bolelli—was found in 1970.
222 Chapter 16
The real frequency of these objects began to be revealed, however, in

1981, when the SOLWIND orbiting coronagraph was found to have imaged
a relatively bright one approaching the Sun in August 1979. This one did
not survive (although it apparently did not, as first believed, actually hit
the Sun) but turned out to be the first discovery of a whole population of
mini-Kreutz comets seen only by coronagraphs placed outside of Earth’s
atmosphere. Further examples were found by the SOLWIND, SOLAR MAX,
SOHO and STEREO spacecraft. The SOHO LASCO 2 and 3 coronagraphs
have been especially prolific in the discovery of these objects. As of early
2016, over 3000 have been found by SOHO, a greater number of comets
than previously recorded during the entire course of human history!
These relatively recent events have stimulated a great renewal of interest in

Kreutz comets. Studies by Z. Sekanina, P. Chodas and R. Kracht have identified
several likely candidates for earlier apparitions of these comets. Most of the
SOHO comets, together with those of 1843, 1880 and 1887, are now thought
to be fragments of a very bright object seen in 1106. On the other hand, those
of 1882 and 1965 (together with that of 1945 and possibly that of 1702 as
well) appear to have originated in the disruption of an unobserved comet
that also passed perihelion during the early twelfth century, and both of
these earlier objects may have originated in a surprisingly poorly recorded
comet seen 214 b.c. Despite its brief mention in Chinese chronicles, this early
object is now thought to have been the progenitor of the entire Kreutz group.
Interestingly, the annual numbers of SOHO sungrazers have been increas-

ing (as a general trend) since this spacecraft began operations in 1996.
December 2010, in particular, saw a remarkable influx of these objects, so
much so that this episode has even been referred to as a “comet storm” by
the scientists associated with the SOHO project. Then, just 1 year later, the
first sungrazer discovered from the ground (Comet Lovejoy) made a spec-
tacular appearance in the Southern Hemisphere.
Looking back over the numbers of bright sungrazers and suspected sun-
grazers in earlier times, it is apparent that they have a strong tendency to
appear in clusters or clumps. The suspected sungrazer of 1668, for instance,
was surrounded by several other objects that might also have belonged to
the group (in 1666, 1689, 1695 plus the suspected sungrazer of 1702).
Then, during the 1800s, we have the comets of 1843, 1880, 1882 and 1887
in addition to a small object seen during an eclipse of the Sun in May
1882 that is strongly suspected of having been a member of the family.
During the twentieth century, sungrazers were recorded in 1945, 1963,

1965 and 1970 (not including those observed only from space).
Needless to say, the increase in the annual numbers of SOHO comets,

together with the “comet storm” of December 2010 (were these fragments
of a larger comet that disrupted not long before perihelion?) plus Comet
Lovejoy in 2011 is seen by a number of astronomers as evidence that we
might be at the beginning of another cluster of sungrazers. This is quite
possible, although we cannot be sure.
For instance, a study by Sekanina and Kracht showed that there is no direct
association between the 2010 comet storm and the appearance of Lovejoy
1 year later. The former objects were linked to the comet of 1106, whereas
Lovejoy seems to have originated as a fragment of an unrecorded sun-
grazer in the early 1300s. The occurrence of these two events a year apart
appears to have been coincidental and, as such, does not necessarily imply
that other bright sungrazers are just around the corner. Still, the appear-
ance of one bright sungrazer in 2011 at least gives hope that similar
objects may also be on their way.
Because members of the Kreutz family have been well and truly ‘baked” dur-
ing previous returns, most of their highly volatile material has already been
boiled away, implying that they do not switch on activity until relatively close
to the Sun. They are not, therefore, likely to be found by the professional
automated programs. When far from the Sun, at the time they would be pass-
ing through the regions of sky examined by these programs, they are almost
certainly inactive and very faint. Only as they draw closer to the Sun in space,
and as their angular elongations decrease in the sky, will they become discov-
erable, and it is here that the visual comet hunter has a chance of making a
discovery. Moreover, because they all follow similar orbits, a constant scan of
the sky along their track (possibly in conjunction with more general comet
sweeps of some other observing program) may produce very exciting results.
With this in mind, the following ephemeris (originally appearing in the

author’s Weird Worlds) is provided to assist observers in seeking these
objects. Too much should not be read into the absolute magnitude value, as
this is given simply as a rough guide. There is no reason to think that a new
sungrazer will have an absolute magnitude of 10, although it is likely (per-
haps following an initial rapid brightening) that it will brighten according to
the inverse fourth power of its heliocentric distance, as assumed here.
224 Chapter 16
We must stress once again that the appearance of a new sungrazer having
the potential to be visually discovered from the ground is far from guaran-
teed. We may be at the threshold of another cluster like those of the 1800s
or 1960s, but this is also far from certain. What is certain, however, is that if
another bright sungrazer does appear, and nobody is conducting visual
searches along the Kreutz path, its discovery will not be a visual one!
Perihelion Date Position El Mag.

(1st and 15th day of prev. month) (H10 = 10)
Jan. 1 Dec.1 1 10 h 19 m –52 deg. 50 m 74.2 deg. 9.6
Dec. 15 15 h 44 m –66 deg. 51 m 46.7 deg. 7.4
Feb. 1 Jan. 1 3 h 9.9 m –77 deg. 56 m 78.3 deg. 9.2
Jan. 15 22 h 56.6 –50 deg. 22 m 47.2 deg. 7.7
Mar. 1 Feb. 1 1 h 39.9 m –35 deg. 45 m 64.5 deg. 9.6
Feb. 15 0 h 32.0 m –22 deg. 50 m 40 deg. 7.8
Apr. 1 Mar. 1 2 h 36.8 m –17 deg. 2 m 56.7 deg. 10.6
Mar. 15 2 h 8.3 m –9 deg. 12 m 37.8 deg. 8.9
May 1 Apr. 1 3 h 26.4 m –5 deg. 9 m 42.5 deg. 11.0
Apr. 15 3 h 18.7 m +1 deg. 5 m 28 deg. 9.1
June 1 May 1 4 h 24.4 m +1 deg. 21 m 30.9 deg. 11.5
May 15 4 h 32.4 m +6 deg. 28 m 20.2 deg. 9.6
July 1 June 1 5 h 23.8 m +5 deg. 20.7 deg. 11.6
June 15 5 h 45.0 m +9 deg. 12 m 14.4 deg. 9.5
Aug. 1 July 1 6 h 23.7 m +5 deg. 17 m 18.2 deg. 11.7
July 15 6 h 56.6 m +7 deg. 59 m 16.7 deg. 9.7
Sept. 1 Aug. 1 7 h 24.1 m +2 deg. 58 m 25.0 deg. 11.6
Aug. 15 8 h 9 m +3 deg. 49 m 24.1 deg. 9.5
Oct. 1 Sept. 1 8 h 23.8 m –2 deg. 13 m 35.6 deg. 11.3
Sept. 15 9 h 24.6 m –3 deg. 47 m 32.2 deg. 9.0
Nov. 1 Oct. 1 9 h 14.8 m –11 deg. 6 m 48.5 deg. 11.0
Oct. 15 10 h 33.4 m –16 deg. 9 m 41.2 deg. 8.7
Dec. 1 Nov. 1 10 h 6.2 m –26 deg. 9 m 61 deg. 10.2
Nov. 15 12 h 15.3 m –36 deg. 33 m 44.3 deg. 7.8
It will be noticed that the above gives positions prior to perihelion only.
Although there is evidence that sungrazers have a tendency to brighten
after perihelion, because the Sun is now constantly being monitored by
space-based solar observatories, it is now very unlikely that one will slip
past the Sun and become visible for the first time as it moves away from
perihelion. This has happened in former times but, alas, there is very little
chance of it happening today.
Numbered Observable Short-Period Comets 225
CHAPTER 17
NUMBERED OBSERVABLE SHORT-PERIOD COMETS
The following list includes all numbered comets of short period cataloged
until June 2016 that have been observed at their most recent favorable
apparition and that, presumably, still existed as of that date.
Several other numbered comets are deemed to be defunct. Most probably,

these have disintegrated, although there is a small possibility that one or
two of them may simply be going through a dormant phase and will acti-
vate again at some future time. Nevertheless, these comets have not been
included in the following list.
Periodic comets that have been observed at only a single apparition and
have not received a number have also been omitted from this list. Some of
these are recent discoveries and have not yet returned, although there are
also several one-apparition periodic comets that did not reappear during
at least one favorable predicted return and which are now considered to be
“lost.” Sometimes, this has resulted from dramatic orbital change or
through uncertainty in a calculated orbit. On other occasions, however, the
comet appears to have been in outburst at discovery and has subsequently
faded to obscurity. Some have undoubtedly joined the ranks of the
“defunct,” although that is not necessarily true of all of these objects, and
future recovery remains possible.
The majority of the comets that are listed here are faint objects that are not
normally of observational interest to visual observers. However, some-
times a close approach to Earth will bring a normally faint object to within
visual range, and there is always a possibility that any comet will unexpect-
edly flare in brightness.
The following list includes the periodic comets in order of number, their
orbital period (P), perihelion distance (q), orbital inclination (i) and the
eccentricity of their orbits (e).

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_17
226 Chapter 17
COMET P q i e
1P/Halley 75.32 0.5867 162.2627 0.9671
2P/Encke 3.30 0.3362 11.7789 0.8482
4P/Faye 7.52 1.6550 9.05 0.5687
6P/d’Arrest 6.54 1.3534 19.4817 0.6128
7P/Pons–Winnecke 6.33 1.2410 22.3359 0.6374
8P/Tuttle 13.61 1.0271 54.9832 0.8198
9P/Tempel 5.56 1.5323 10.502 0.5119
10P/Tempel 5.37 1.4209 12.0292 0.5364
11P/Tempel–Swift–LINEAR 6.37 1.5840 13.4604 0.5392
12P/Pons–Brooks 70.85 0.7739 74.1769 0.9548
13P/Olbers 69.52 1.1784 44.6099 0.9303
14P/Wolf 8.74 2.7249 27.9431 0.3578
15P/Finlay 6.50 0.9702 6.81683 0.7214
16P/Brooks 6.14 1.4665 4.2581 0.5628
17P/Holmes 6.89 2.0567 19.0916 0.4320
19P/Borrelly 6.85 1.3537 30.3307 0.62467
21P/Giacobini–Zinner 6.59 1.0308 31.9081 0.7068
22P/Kopff 6.42 1.5727 4.7369 0.5449
23P/Brorsen–Metcalf 70.52 0.4779 19.3339 0.9720
24P/Schaumasse 8.25 1.2050 11.7515 0.7048
26P/Grigg–Skjellerup 5.24 1.0860 22.4243 0.6401
27P/Crommelin 28.07 0.7481 28.9669 0.9190
28P/Neujmin 18.17 1.5522 14.1856 0.7754
29P/Schwassmann–Wachmann 14.71 5.7484 9.3751 0.0427
30P/Reinmuth 7.34 1.8832 8.1227 0.5012
32P/Comas Solà 9.57 2.0015 9.9708 0.5559
33P/Daniel 8.10 2.1694 22.3746 0.4620
35P/Herschel–Rigollet 155.0 0.7470 64.207 0.9741
36P/Whipple 8.53 3.0818 9.9273 0.2617
37P/Forbes 6.37 1.5782 8.9553 0.5406
38P/Stephan–Oterma 37.72 1.5747 17.9814 0.8600
39P/Oterma 19.53 5.4712 1.9428 0.2455
40P/Väisälä 10.98 1.8179 11.4898 0.6320
41P/Tuttle–Giacobini–Kresák 5.42 1.0478 9.228 0.6604
42P/Neujmin 10.70 2.0145 3.9855 0.5852
43P/Wolf–Harrington 6.13 1.3574 15.968 0.5947
44P/Reinmuth 7.10 2.1163 5.8954 0.4269
45P/Honda–Mrkos–Pajdušáková 5.25 0.5297 4.2524 0.8247
46P/Wirtanen 5.43 1.0519 11.7571 0.6593
47P/Ashbrook–Jackson 8.36 2.8097 13.0357 0.3177
(continued)
COMET P q i e
48P/Johnson 6.98 2.3001 13.9668 0.3700
49P/Arend–Rigaux 6.73 1.4247 19.0517 0.6004
50P/Arend 8.27 1.9236 19.1584 0.5295
51P/Harrington 6.78 1.5683 8.6573 0.5622
52P/Harrington–Abell 7.58 1.7731 10.2313 0.5405
53P/Van Biesbroeck 12.53 2.4148 6.6061 0.5523
54P/de Vico–Swift–NEAT 7.38 2.1719 6.0672 0.4270
55P/Tempel–Tuttle 33.24 0.9759 164.4866 0.9056
56P/Slaughter–Burnham 11.54 2.5348 8.1557 0.5037
57P/du Toit–Neujmin–Delporte 6.40 1.7247 2.8487 0.4998
58P/Jackson–Neujmin 8.24 1.3812 13.4784 0.6615
59P/Kearns–Kwee 9.51 2.3553 9.3399 0.4754
60P/Tsuchinshan 6.56 1.6183 3.6107 0.5384
61P/Shajn–Schaldach 7.06 2.1084 6.0105 0.4269
62P/Tsuchinshan 6.63 1.4891 10.5021 0.5780
63P/Wild 13.20 1.9502 19.78 0.6508
64P/Swift–Gehrels 9.35 1.3773 8.9499 0.6897
65P/Gunn 7.27 2.6253 9.389 0.3007
66P/du Toit 14.71 1.2743 18.7007 0.7877
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko 6.45 1.2430 7.0408 0.6411
68P/Klemola 10.83 1.7604 10.1437 0.6407
69P/Taylor 7.65 2.2727 20.046 0.4145
70P/Kojima 7.04 2.0068 6.6004 0.4537
71P/Clark 5.53 1.5861 9.48 0.4982
72P/Denning–Fujikawa 9.02 0.9357 9.1697 0.7841
74P/Smirnova–Chernykh 8.50 3.5473 6.6509 0.1481
76P/West–Kohoutek–Ikemura 6.47 1.6001 30.4827 0.5390
77P/Longmore 6.83 2.3108 24.3989 0.3579
78P/Gehrels 7.22 2.0089 6.2538 0.4622
79P/du Toit-Hartley 5.06 1.1238 3.1456 0.6185
80P/Peters–Hartley 8.12 1.6238 29.8543 0.5981
81P/Wild 6.41 1.5960 3.2383 0.5374
82P/Gehrels 8.43 3.6335 1.1259 0.1228
84P/Giclas 6.94 1.8397 7.2871 0.4943
86P/Wild 6.91 2.3010 15.4475 0.3660
87P/Bus 6.51 2.1733 2.6011 0.3764
88P/Howell 5.48 1.3615 4.3824 0.5622
89P/Russell 7.39 2.2801 12.0323 0.3992
90P/Gehrels 14.85 2.9661 9.6153 0.5091
91P/Russell 7.70 2.6166 14.0752 0.3291
(continued)
228 Chapter 17
COMET P q i e
92P/Sanguin 12.43 1.8078 19.4434 0.6631
93P/Lovas 9.20 1.7042 12.2198 0.6119
94P/Russell 6.58 2.2355 6.1839 0.3636
95P/Chiron 50.41 8.4473 6.9352 0.3810
96P/Machholz 5.28 0.1238 58.3122 0.9592
97P/Metcalf–Brewington 10.51 2.5978 17.8783 0.4584
98P/Takamizawa 7.44 1.6734 10.5442 0.5607
99P/Kowal 15.25 4.7433 4.3325 0.2288
100P/Hartley 6.31 1.9909 25.6615 0.4172
101P/Chernykh 13.94 2.3505 5.0793 0.5942
102P/Shoemaker 7.22 1.9686 26.2476 0.4729
103P/Hartley 6.47 1.0587 13.6172 0.69514
104P/Kowal 6.18 1.3962 15.4894 0.5853
105P/Singer Brewster 6.46 2.0504 9.1709 0.4091
106P/Schuster 7.31 1.5559 20.1114 0.5868
107P/Wilson–Harrington 4.29 0.9942 2.7847 0.6235
108P/Ciffréo 7.26 1.7193 13.0782 0.5415
109P/Swift–Tuttle 133.28 0.9602 113.4538 0.9632
110P/Hartley 6.86 2.4761 11.6938 0.3142
111P/Helin–Roman–Crockett 8.49 3.7071 4.2288 0.1096
112P/Urata–Niijima 6.64 1.4551 24.2030 0.5882
113P/Spitaler 7.09 2.1282 5.7757 0.4232
114P/Wiseman–Skiff 6.67 1.5749 18.2841 0.5555
115P/Maury 8.79 2.0395 11.6874 0.5212
116P/Wild 6.48 2.1750 3.6123 0.3744
117P/Helin–Roman–Alu 8.29 2.9919 8.6972 0.2538
118P/Shoemaker–Levy 6.45 1.9816 8.5084 0.4282
119P/Parker–Hartley 8.84 3.0268 5.1959 0.2922
120P/Mueller 8.39 2.7290 8.7959 0.3390
121P/Shoemaker–Holt 9.98 3.7531 20.1563 0.1903
122P/de Vico 74.35 0.6595 85.3828 0.9627
123P/West–Hartley 7.59 2.1288 15.3569 0.4486
124P/Mrkos 6.04 1.6455 31.5290 0.5039
125P/Spacewatch 5.53 1.5255 9.9872 0.5123
126P/IRAS 13.42 1.7177 45.8027 0.6958
127P/Holt–Olmstead 6.40 2.1937 14.3129 0.3634
128P/Shoemaker–Holt 9.59 3.0687 4.3551 0.3200
129P/Shoemaker–Levy 8.96 3.9132 3.43815 0.0932
130P/McNaught–Hughes 6.67 2.0847 7.34 0.4117
131P/Mueller 7.06 2.4165 7.3551 0.3432
132P/Helin–Roman–Alu 8.28 1.9242 5.7660 0.5300
(continued)
COMET P q i e
133P/Elst–Pizarro 5.62 2.6500 1.3871 0.1613
134P/Kowal–Vávrová 15.55 2.5714 4.3488 0.5872
135P/Shoemaker–Levy 7.50 2.7210 6.0501 0.2896
136P/Mueller 8.59 2.9630 9.42636 0.2935
137P/Shoemaker–Levy 9.55 1.9060 4.8689 0.5765
138P/Shoemaker–Levy 6.89 1.7004 10.0856 0.5305
139P/Väisälä–Oterma 9.61 3.4026 2.3290 0.2470
140P/Bowell–Skiff 16.18 1.9716 3.8358 0.6918
141P/Machholz 5.22 0.7489 12.8118 0.7511
142P/Ge–Wang 11.05 2.4887 12.3068 0.4982
143P/Kowal–Mrkos 8.93 2.5384 4.6898 0.4101
144P/Kushida 7.60 1.4390 4.1092 0.6278
145P/Shoemaker–Levy 8.43 1.8974 11.2836 0.5418
146P/Shoemaker–LINEAR 8.08 1.4178 23.0797 0.6479
147P/Kushida–Muramatsu 7.43 2.7563 2.3680 0.2760
148P/Anderson–LINEAR 7.07 1.7027 3.6784 0.5378
149P/Mueller 9.02 2.6507 29.7345 0.3884
150P/LONEOS 7.67 1.7627 18.5066 0.5469
151P/Helin 14.10 2.5318 4.7159 0.5663
152P/Helin–Lawrence 9.54 3.1159 9.8679 0.3071
153P/Ikeya–Zhang 366.51 0.5070 28.1199 0.9901
154P/Brewington 10.78 1.6077 17.8328 0.6706
155P/Shoemaker 17.09 1.8132 6.3859 0.7267
156P/Russell–LINEAR 6.82 1.5850 20.7778 0.5591
157P/Tritton 6.31 1.3579 7.2848 0.6022
158P/Kowal–LINEAR 10.26 4.5857 7.9084 0.0286
159P/LONEOS 14.32 3.6510 3.6508 0.3808
160P/LINEAR 7.92 2.0701 17.2785 0.4790
161P/Hartley–IRAS 21.43 1.2722 95.6981 0.8351
162P/Siding Spring 5.32 1.2278 27.8448 0.5972
163P/NEAT 7.30 2.0572 12.7179 0.4532
164P/Christensen 6.97 1.6737 16.2684 0.5413
165P/LINEAR 76.69 6.8301 6.8304 0.6216
166P/NEAT 51.73 8.5643 15.3684 0.3831
167P/CINEOS 64.85 4.3580 19.1272 0.2700
168P/Hergenrother 6.90 1.4147 21.9279 0.6096
169P/NEAT 4.20 0.6068 11.3047 0.7670
170P/Christensen 8.63 2.9283 10.1277 0.3042
171P/Spahr 6.69 1.7650 21.9496 0.5031
172P/Yeung 6.58 2.2410 11.5179 0.3621
173P/Mueller 13.63 4.2135 16.4934 0.2617
(continued)
230 Chapter 17
COMET P q i e
174P/Echeclus 34.96 5.8164 4.3427 0.4560
175P/Hergenrother 6.51 2.0089 6.0943 0.4236
176P/LINEAR 5.71 0.6175 0.2349 0.1934
177P/Barnard 119.67 1.1073 31.1793 0.9544
178P/Hug–Bell 7.03 1.9338 10.9749 0.4730
179P/Jedicke 14.31 4.0814 19.8856 0.3074
180P/NEAT 7.54 2.4687 16.9136 0.3580
181P/Shoemaker–Levy 7.53 1.1277 16.9267 0.7065
182P/LONEOS 5.02 0.9781 16.9093 0.6663
183P/Korlevic–Juric 9.58 3.8944 18.7259 0.1366
184P/Lovas 6.62 1.3937 1.5502 0.6047
185P/Petriew 5.46 0.9321 14.0070 0.6993
186P/Garradd 10.62 4.2640 28.8455 0.1175
187P/LINEAR 9.68 3.800 3.6954 0.1636
188P/LINEAR–Mueller 9.13 2.5526 2.5526 0.4156
189P/NEAT 4.99 1.1775 29.3759 0.5968
190P/Mueller 8.73 2.0359 2.0357 0.5197
191P/McNaught 6.64 2.0479 8.7612 0.4201
192P/Shoemaker–Levy 17.29 1.5325 24.3873 0.7708
193P/LINEAR–NEAT 6.56 2.0445 10.6866 0.4167
194P/LINEAR 8.03 1.7071 11.1231 0.5744
195P/Hill 16.49 4.4324 36.3675 0.3150
196P/Tichý 7.36 2.1518 19.3742 0.4311
197P/LINEAR 4.85 1.0613 25.5427 0.6297
198P/ODAS 6.78 1.9782 1.3494 0.4479
199P/Shoemaker 14.53 2.9365 24.7677 0.5069
200P/Larsen 10.92 3.2802 12.1223 0.3334
201P/LONEOS 6.47 1.3386 7.0436 0.6089
202P/Scotti 7.32 2.5255 2.1854 0.3304
203P/Korlevic 10.01 3.1822 2.9760 0.3147
204P/LINEAR–NEAT 7.00 1.9383 6.5825 0.4705
205P/Giacobini 6.66 1.5264 15.3043 0.5688
206P/Barnard–Boattini 5.83 1.1452 32.9309 0.6464
207P/NEAT 7.66 0.9440 10.1500 0.7570
208P/McMillan 8.11 2.5253 4.4146 0.3743
209P/LINEAR 5.04 0.9134 19.3878 0.6891
210P/Christensen 5.71 0.5465 10.1666 0.8289
211P/Hill 6.73 2.3617 18.8707 0.3377
212P/NEAT 7.78 1.6544 22.3980 0.5787
213P/Van Ness 6.34 2.1223 10.2369 0.3807
214P/LINEAR 6.84 1.8397 15.2260 0.4896
(continued)
COMET P q i e
215P/NEAT 8.07 3.2160 12.7892 0.2006
216P/LINEAR 7.65 2.1525 9.0414 0.4454
217P/LINEAR 7.83 1.2237 12.8819 0.6896
218P/LINEAR 6.11 1.7026 18.1511 0.4903
219P/LINEAR 6.98 2.3640 11.5234 0.3525
220P/McNaught 5.50 1.5539 8.1232 0.5013
221P/LINEAR 6.50 1.7904 11.4130 0.4861
222P/LINEAR 4.83 0.7810 5.1458 0.7267
223P/Skiff 8.42 2.4108 27.0495 0.4175
224P/LINEAR–NEAT 6.11 1.8820 14.7304 0.4369
225P/LINEAR 6.68 1.1919 20.7096 0.6638
226P/Pigott–LINEAR–Kowalski 7.09 1.9011 46.3472 0.4805
227P/Catalina–LINEAR 6.79 1.7959 6.5238 0.4994
228P/LINEAR 8.49 3.4281 7.9181 0.1763
229P/Gibbs 7.78 2.4404 26.1088 0.3782
230P/LINEAR 6.27 1.4860 14.6433 0.5628
231P/LINEAR–NEAT 8.08 3.0312 12.3279 0.2470
232P/Hill 9.49 2.9833 14.6350 0.3345
233P/La Sagra 5.29 1.7951 11.2764 0.4090
234P/LINEAR 7.46 2.8563 11.5183 0.2519
235P/LINEAR 8.00 2.7411 8.8959 0.3148
236P/LINEAR 7.20 1.8310 16.3338 0.5088
237P/LINEAR 7.22 2.4192 16.1550 0.3526
238P/Read 5.63 2.3646 1.2662 0.2528
239P/LINEAR 9.43 1.6452 11.3188 0.6315
240P/NEAT 7.60 2.1265 23.5250 0.4501
241P/LINEAR 10.79 1.8611 20.7424 0.6189
242P/Spahr 13.39 3.8680 32.1285 0.3141
243P/NEAT 7.50 2.4574 7.6381 0.3586
244P/Scotti 11.00 3.9356 2.2676 0.2042
245P/WISE 8.03 2.1410 2.1412 0.4663
246P/NEAT 8.06 2.8685 15.9865 0.28646
247P/LINEAR 7.98 1.4961 13.7282 0.6252
248P/Gibbs 14.63 2.1465 6.3678 0.6412
249P/LINEAR 4.63 0.5107 8.4341 0.8161
250P/Larson 7.20 2.2140 13.2935 0.4065
251P/LINEAR 6.52 1.7113 23.5070 0.5096
252P/LINEAR 5.34 1.0014 10.3811 0.6724
253P/PANSTARRS 6.46 2.0379 4.9403 0.4126
254P/McNaught 10.09 3.2136 32.5642 0.3119
255P/Levy 5.30 1.0078 18.2690 0.6683
(continued)
232 Chapter 17
COMET P q i e
256P/LINEAR 9.93 2.6899 27.6418 0.4179
257P/Catalina 7.28 2.1271 20.2439 0.4336
258P/PANSTARRS 9.22 3.4792 6.7462 0.2088
259P/Garradd 4.50 1.7930 15.9031 0.3422
260P/McNaught 7.07 1.4980 15.7369 0.5935
261P/Larson 6.79 2.1895 6.3229 0.3896
262P/McNaught–Russell 18.27 1.2803 29.0794 0.8154
263P/Gibbs 5.27 1.2512 14.4712 0.5870
264P/Larsen 7.68 2.4372 25.1477 0.3738
265P/LINEAR 8.77 1.5056 14.6912 0.6460
266P/Christensen 6.63 2.3278 3.4286 0.3407
267P/LONEOS 5.97 1.3379 5.3686 0.5933
268P/Bernardi 9.55 2.3452 15.6195 0.4789
269P/Jedicke 19.28 4.0572 6.6179 0.4358
270P/Gehrels 17.54 3.5953 2.8594 0.4674
271P/van Houten–Lemmon 18.38 4.2547 6.8563 0.3890
272P/NEAT 9.40 2.4377 18.2770 0.4525
273P/Pons–Gambart 187.47 0.8091 136.3990 0.9753
274P/Tombaugh–Tenagra 9.12 2.4420 15.8373 0.4406
275P/Hermann 13.84 1.6492 21.5699 0.7139
276P/Vorobjov 12.43 3.9225 14.4977 0.2691
277P/LINEAR 7.60 1.9190 16.7255 0.5036
278P/McNaught 7.09 2.0880 6.6873 0.4345
279P/La Sagra 6.76 2.1475 5.0547 0.3994
280P/Larsen 9.58 2.6254 11.7797 0.4181
281P/MOSS 10.72 4.0181 4.7211 0.1736
282P/LONEOS 8.77 3.4504 5.8093 0.1884
283P/Spacewatch 8.41 2.1267 14.4640 0.48567
284P/McNaught 7.07 2.2860 11.8619 0.3792
285P/LINEAR 9.59 1.7103 24.4972 0.6210
286P/Christensen 8.35 2.3668 2.3668 0.4249
287P/Christensen 8.51 3.0391 16.3148 0.2708
288P/Spacewatch 5.32 2.4341 3.2407 0.2012
289P/Blanpain 5.41 0.9990 5.9312 0.6757
290P/Jäger 15.08 2.1547 19.0685 0.6470
291P/NEAT 9.73 2.6051 5.9471 0.4286
292P/Li 15.19 2.5355 24.3151 0.5867
293P/Spacewatch 6.93 2.1094 9.0688 0.4194
294P/LINEAR 5.73 1.2978 19.0858 0.5945
295P/LINEAR 12.36 2.0588 21.1062 0.6149
296P/Garradd 6.55 1.8729 25.2013 0.4765
(continued)
COMET P q i e
297P/Beshore 6.5 2.4089 10.2636 0.3086
298P/Christensen 6.52 2.0508 8.0217 0.4124
299P/Catalina–PANSTARRS 9.15 3.1421 10.4799 0.2817
300P/Catalina 4.42 0.8254 5.6960 0.6936
301P/LINEAR–NEAT 3.56 0.9681 10.6182 0.5874
302P/Lemmon–PANSTARRS 8.81 2.5271 6.0365 0.2304
303P/NEAT 11.44 2.5129 7.0470 0.5085
304P/Ory 5.84 1.3823 2.7552 0.5736
305P/Skiff 9.98 1.4041 11.4674 0.6939
306P/LINEAR 5.47 1.2469 8.3644 0.5984
307P/LINEAR 14.06 1.8887 4.4242 0.6729
308P/Lagerkvist–Carsenty 17.27 4.2552 4.8352 0.3653
309P/LINEAR 9.41 1.7507 17.6490 0.6061
310P/Hill 8.51 2.3971 13.1766 0.4246
311P/PANSTARRS 3.24 1.9365 4.9685 0.1153
312P/NEAT 6.41 1.9494 19.8555 0.4348
313P/Gibbs 5.61 2.3907 10.9663 0.2422
314P/Montani 19.44 4.2537 3.99168 0.4176
315P/LONEOS 10.67 2.3769 20.11699 0.5098
316P/LONEOS–Christensen 9.00 3.6077 9.88289 0.1664
317P/WISE 5.11 1.1941 11.93941 0.56985
318P/McNaught–Hartley 20.6 2.4466 17.8685 0.67424
319P/Catalina–McNaught 6.76 1.1970 15.07376 0.66528
320P/McNaught 5.45 0.9854 4.89971 0.68455
321P/SOHO 3.77 0.0459 20.20228 0.98118
322P/SOHO 3.99 0.0537 12.57970 0.97869
323P/SOHO 4.15 0.0479 5.39377 0.98465
324P/La Sagra 5.45 2.6198 21.41643 0.15378
325P/Yang–Gao 6.61 1.2961 16.6921 0.59370
326P/Hill 8.22 2.7767 2.4705 0.31729
327P/Van Ness 6.74 1.5512 36.21403 0.56255
328P/LONEOS–Tucker 8.62 1.8799 17.64912 0.55120
329P/LINEAR–Catalina 11.8 1.6599 21.46166 0.67974
330P/Catalina 16.8 2.9698 15.56476 0.55064
331P/Gibbs 5.21 2.8774 9.73941 0.04142
332P/Ikeya–Murakami 5.42 1.5788 9.38603 0.49043
333P/NEAT 8.68 1.1157 131.877 0.73605
334P/NEAT 16.7 4.1542 19.05406 0.35958
335P/Gibbs 6.78 1.6382 7.28788 0.54506
336P/McNaught 11.3 2.6327 17.83946 0.44622
337P/WISE 5.96 1.64 15.36661 0.4966
Unnumbered Short-Period Comets 235
CHAPTER 18
UNNUMBERED SHORT-PERIOD COMETS
The following lists comets having periods of less than 25 years that have
either been discovered in recent years or for which a short-period orbit has
recently been calculated. Most of these objects will probably be recovered
at future apparitions and be given permanent numbers.
Period
Name e (years) Inclination (°) q
P/1996 R2 Lagerkvist 0.30998 7.36 2.6054 2.60964
P/1998 VS24 LINEAR 0.24393 9.56 5.031 3.4054
P/1999 J6 SOHO 0.98418 5.46 24.61 0.04906
P/1999 RO28 LONEOS 0.65079 6.62 8.191 1.23176
P/1999 XN20 Catalina 0.21391 8.55 5.0283 3.2863
P/2000 R2 LINEAR 0.5837 6.1 3.2163 1.38997
P/2000 S1 Skiff 0.61844 16.91 21.0071 2.51387
P/2000 S4 LINEAR– 0.68177 18.99 28.3253 2.26536
Spacewatch
P/2001 H5 NEAT 0.6002 14.68 8.3993 2.3966
P/2001 R6 LINEAR–Skiff 0.48596 8.35 17.345 2.11508
P/2001 T3 NEAT 0.61481 16.59 19.1982 2.50573
P/2002 EJ57 LINEAR 0.59391 16.53 4.9697 2.6355
P/2002 R5 SOHO 0.98526 5.77 14.12 0.0474
C/2002 S7 SOHO 0.98496 5.79 13.6 0.04849
P/2002 T5 LINEAR 0.437146 18.48 30.90295 3.934176
P/2003 F2 NEAT 0.54219 16.58 11.605 2.9772
P/2003 L1 Scotti 0.2518 17.33 9.02459 5.01
P/2003 QX29 NEAT 0.47179 8.73 11.3965 4.2391
P/2003 SQ215 NEAT–LONEOS 0.5815 12.92 5.54583 2.30422
P/2003 T12 SOHO 0.775433 4.12 11.4579 0.57716
P/2004 FY140 LINEAR 0.1709 11.02 2.1279 4.1061
P/2004 R3 LINEAR–NEAT 0.44184 7.52 7.9723 2.14148
P/2004 T1 LINEAR–NEAT 0.50764 6.47 11.03795 1.709573
(continued)

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1_18
236 Chapter 18
Period
P/2004 V3 Siding Spring 0.4467 18.99 50.4529 3.93839
P/2004 WR9 LINEAR 0.68372 14.92 5.04837 1.9172
P/2005 E1 Tubbiolo 0.3847 19.42 5.154 4.4456
P/2005 GF8 LONEOS 0.5173 14.19 1.18938 2.82951
P/2005 J1 McNaught 0.57096 6.74 31.7659 1.53015
P/2005 JD108 Catalina–NEAT 0.374727 16.36 3.27533 4.028879
P/2005 JN Spacewatch 0.34937 6.54 8.8559 2.2758
P/2005 L1 McNaught 0.20924 7.92 7.7369 3.1428
P/2005 R1 NEAT 0.628059 12.91 15.39578 2.047077
P/2005 S3 Read 0.42025 10.86 3.47889 2.84234
P/2005 SB216 LONEOS 0.463208 18.97 24.09843 3.818266
P/2005 T2 Christensen 0.4219 7.48 8.3378 2.2112
P/2005 T5 Broughton 0.55245 19.54 21.3724 3.2468
P/2005 W3 Kowalski 0.53052 16.22 16.7781 3.0081
P/2005 W4 SOHO 0.98227 5.31 14.6 0.05398
P/2005 XA54 LONEOS-Hill 0.71015 15.19 16.89592 1.777668
P/2005 Y2 McNaught 0.467142 15.8 19.17831 3.355643
P/2006 D1 Hill 0.65946 13.1 17.459 1.89222
P/2006 F1 Kowalski 0.124384 10.22 21.19123 4.12318
P/2006 F4 Spacewatch 0.33708 6.63 12.387 2.3399
P/2006 H1 McNaught 0.58157 13.55 12.87015 2.37848
P/2006 R1 Siding Spring 0.702 13.3 160.011 1.671
P/2006 S1 Christensen 0.6112 6.54 11.8681 1.3593
P/2006 S4 Christensen 0.50808 15.58 39.6258 3.06798
P/2006 W1 Gibbs 0.7069 13.97 19.005 1.69975
P/2006 WY182 Christensen 0.55856 15.94 26.4916 2.79639
P/2007 B1 Christensen 0.58097 14.08 12.3748 2.44272
P/2007 C2 Catalina 0.462251 18.63 8.6747 3.779481
P/2007 K2 Gibbs 0.684 19.23 7.6197 2.2686
P/2007 Q2 Gilmore 0.67123 13.23 10.2384 1.83902
P/2007 R1 Larson 0.27761 14.79 7.87707 4.35193
P/2007 R2 Gibbs 0.57371 6.38 1.43387 1.4658
P/2007 R3 Gibbs 0.416 8.86 3.801 2.4999
P/2007 R4 Garradd 0.67143 14.14 20.2257 1.92137
P/2007 S1 Zhao 0.34339 7.4 5.973 2.4944
P/2007 T2 Kowalski 0.77483 5.43 9.89528 0.695863
P/2007 T4 Gibbs 0.61742 12.03 23.87146 2.00883
P/2007 T6 Catalina 0.50286 9.51 22.15092 2.2322
P/2007 V1 Larson 0.46117 11.07 10.7894 2.67667
P/2007 VQ11 Catalina 0.50227 12.59 12.32465 2.69336
P/2008 CL94 Lemmon 0.11941 15.33 8.34819 5.4337
(continued)
Period
P/2008 J3 McNaught 0.412548 7.68 25.39755 2.2871249
P/2008 L2 Hill 0.613815 14.7 25.86062 2.317378
P/2008 O2 McNaught 0.154383 9.54 9.51679 3.80394
P/2008 QP20 LINEAR-Hill 0.506314 6.52 7.74972 1.723133
P/2008 T1 Boattini 0.27933 8.74 2.07915 3.05697
P/2008 T4 Hill 0.43517 9.38 6.32652 2.511739
P/2008 WZ96 LINEAR 0.5096 6.15 6.95786 1.64624
P/2008 Y1 Boattini 0.73488 10.51 8.80515 1.27198
P/2008 Y12 SOHO 0.9787 5.4 23.35 0.0654
P/2009 B1 Boattini 0.63719 17.3 22.2285 2.42659
P/2009 K1 Gibbs 0.63971 7.04 5.74653 1.322949
P/2009 Q1 Hill 0.49649 13.04 14.443 2.78988
P/2009 Q4 Boattini 0.579197 5.56 10.96932 3.13894
P/2009 S2 McNaught 0.47034 8.49 28.44886 2.203641
P/2009 SK280 Spacewatch-Hill 0.120579 10.43 16.80615 4.19936
P/2009 U4 McNaught 0.6762 11.49 10.0939 1.64936
P/2009 WX51 Catalina 0.740297 5.41 9.5926 0.799956
P/2009 Y2 Kowalski 0.64052 16.6 29.9296 2.33919
P/2010 A1 Hill 0.55437 9.15 10.3344 1.94995
P/2010 A2 LINEAR 0.124568 3.47 5.25425 2.00512
P/2010 A3 Hill 0.73223 14.91 15.02825 1.621828
P/2010 A5 LINEAR 0.664312 11.52 5.78438 1.712045
P/2010 B2 WISE 0.4803 5.49 8.9316 1.61646
P/2010 C1 Scotti 0.25911 18.78 9.14247 5.2349
P/2010 D1 WISE 0.3566 8.45 9.6471 2.6691
P/2010 D2 WISE 0.45301 17.3 57.17704 3.65902
P/2010 H2 Vales 0.192894 7.56 14.2529 3.10767
P/2010 H4 Scotti 0.272 17.05 2.314 4.821
P/2010 H5 Scotti 0.15646 19.09 14.0871 6.0259
P/2010 J5 McNaught 0.087731 8.33 7.35424 3.748721
P/2010 N1 WISE 0.5338 5.74 12.8762 1.49453
P/2010 P4 WISE 0.49864 7.13 24.1018 1.85645
P/2010 T2 PANSTARRS 0.3231 13.06 8.0109 3.754
P/2010 TO20 LINEAR 0.088685 13.25 2.6399 5.1039
P/2010 U1 Boattini 0.26112 17.09 8.24623 4.90317
P/2010 U2 Hill 0.402881 8.84 16.86095 2.55275
P/2010 UH55 Spacewatch 0.57514 16.63 8.66257 2.767969
P/2010 WK LINEAR 0.691987 13.72 11.47913 1.765178
P/2011 A2 Scotti 0.49861 5.48 4.47394 1.558782
P/2011 C2 Gibbs 0.26846 19.99 10.91098 5.38854
P/2011 CR42 Catalina 0.28004 6.58 8.45946 2.52832
(continued)
238 Chapter 18
Period
P/2011 FR143 Lemmon 0.45305 17.85 16.01358 3.73541
P/2011 N1 ASH 0.545926 15.79 35.66877 2.857712
P/2011 NO1 Elenin 0.777 13.1 15.27 1.243
P/2011 Q3 McNaught 0.53153 11.36 6.052 2.36778
P/2011 R3 Novichonok 0.267569 10.7 19.26164 3.557436
P/2011 U1 PANSTARRS 0.41874 8.17 15.2419 2.35778
P/2011 U2 Bressi 0.11137 12.7 9.62363 4.83734
P/2011 UA134 Spacewatch– 0.6327 13.2 10.5395 2.05151
PANSTARRS
P/2011 V1 Boattini 0.555 7.53 7.397 1.7094
P/2011 VJ5 Lemmon 0.55727 6.28 3.97276 1.50639
P/2011 W1 PANSTARRS 0.28866 10.05 3.71861 3.31206
P/2011 W2 Rinner 0.39373 7.4 13.77394 2.30306
P/2011 Y2 Boattini 0.71291 15.53 6.35139 1.787145
P/2012 B1 PANSTARRS 0.410496 16.53 7.62779 3.8251522
P/2012 F2 PANSTARRS 0.54224 15.92 14.72465 2.89707
P/2012 G1 PANSTARRS 0.39 8.6 11.7 2.6
P/2012 K3 Gibbs 0.42596 6.88 13.2012 2.07686
P/2012 O1 McNaught 0.57925 6.73 11.4286 1.499145
P/2012 O2 McNaught 0.53827 6.82 24.5274 1.660834
P/2012 O3 McNaught 0.648808 9.72 16.49674 1.599449
P/2012 S2 La Sagra 0.69059 9.33 8.58181 1.371192
P/2012 SB6 Lemmon 0.38462 7.73 10.9897 2.4065
P/2012 T1 PANSTARRS 0.23563 5.6 11.0591 2.4108
P/2012 T2 PANSTARRS 0.159 13.73 12.562 4.823
P/2012 T3 PANSTARRS 0.66 17.2 9.65 2.29
P/2012 TK8 Tenagra 0.26137 8.56 6.29457 3.09093
P/2012 U2 PANSTARRS 0.50657 19.94 10.5345 3.6278
P/2012 US27 Siding Spring 0.64858 11.79 39.29295 1.820844
P/2012 WA34 Lemmon- 0.34025 10.55 6.1167 3.1732
PANSTARRS
P/2013 A2 Scotti 0.45584 8 3.3661 2.17739
P/2013 AL76 Catalina 0.685 16.6 144.861 2.0476
P/2013 CU129 PANSTARRS 0.722105 4.89 12.14763 0.8001477
P/2013 EW90 Tenagra 0.19621 8.32 31.8102 3.3004
P/2013 G1 Kowalski 0.51237 18.03 5.46867 3.353099
P/2013 G4 PANSTARRS 0.4104 9.33 5.926 2.6132
P/2013 J2 McNaught 0.656146 15.61 15.49553 2.147828
P/2013 J4 PANSTARRS 0.6 20 4.8 2.3
P/2013 N5 PANSTARRS 0.7319 17.74 23.2425 1.82305
P/2013 O2 PANSTARRS 0.43894 7.48 13.30706 2.1401
(continued)
Period
P/2013 R3 Catalina– 0.27345 5.28 0.89893 2.20358
PANSTARRS
P/2013 R3-A Catalina– 0.2733 5.28 0.898 2.2038
PANSTARRS
P/2013 R3-B Catalina– 0.2733 5.28 0.8996 2.2038
PANSTARRS
P/2013 T1 PANSTARRS 0.6233 14.21 24.21 2.2105
P/2013 T2 Schwartz 0.52849 6.25 9.3521 1.59962
P/2013 TL117 Lemmon 0.689914 6.84 9.36564 1.1176721
P/2013 W1 PANSTARRS 0.59388 6.51 4.69951 1.415614
P/2013 YG46 Spacewatch 0.4516 6.02 8.217 1.815
P/2014 A2 Hill 0.64983 14.42 24.5135 2.07468
P/2014 A3 PANSTARRS 0.242 10.12 13.6706 3.547
P/2014 C1 TOTAS 0.446 5.31 2.6796 1.6857
P/2014 E1 Larson 0.423184 7.15 15.97916 2.141133
P/2014 L2 NEOWISE 0.646763 15.91 5.18441 2.234541
P/2014 M4 PANSTARRS 0.59557 14.02 3.34519 2.3513
P/2014 MG4 Spacewatch– 0.25919 11.22 9.36884 3.71321
PANSTARRS
P/2014 R5 Lemmon– 0.4128 8.19 1.0881 2.3859
PANSTARRS
P/2014 U2 Kowalski 0.614 5.3 7.57 1.167
P/2014 U4 PANSTARRS 0.4711 6.51 6.4571 1.8434
P/2014 V1 PANSTARRS 0.4 8 23 2.6
P/2014 W4 PANSTARRS 0.35312 16.91 15.2738 4.26150
P/2015 C1 TOTAS-Gibbs 0.56256 17.00 13.8774 2.89264
C/2015 D2 SOHO 0.9943 11 69.62 0.02832
P/2015 D6 Lemmon- 0.3696 19.48 20.1839 4.5637
PANSTARRS
P/2015 J1 PANSTARRS 0.27825 6.61 2.80440 2.54160
P/2015 J3 NEOWISE 0.55404 6.13 8.1252 3.3503
P/2015 K5 PANSTARRS 0.5540 17.32 39.987 2.9861
P/2015 M2 PANSTARRS 0.1788 19.32 3.9746 5.9133
P/2015 P4 PANSTARRS 0.58424 14.97 8.71375 2.52516
P/2015 PD229 ISON- 0.32672 19.23 2.0269 4.8320
Cameron
C/2015 Q1 Scotti 0.489227 6.35 22.64933 1.751699
P/2015 Q2 Pimentel 0.7544 20.16 146.2022 1.81912
C/2015 R1 PANSTARRS 0.63286 14.32 22.6683 2.16545
P/2015 R2 PANSTARRS 0.440 9.1 14.8 2.44
P/2015 T3 PANSTARRS 0.43 7.7 12.2 2.21
(continued)
240 Chapter 18
Period
P/2015 TO19 Lemmon- 0.3589 9.75 6.500 2.9256
PANSTARRS
P/2015 W2 Catalina 0.63411 19.80 11.6113 2.67834
P/2015 X1 PANSTARRS 0.42039 6.91 12.1622 2.10355
P/2015 X3 PANSTARRS 0.4382 11.26 24.38 2.822
P/2015 X6 PANSTARRS 0.1700 4.57 4.5583 2.2873
P/2016 A2 Christensen 0.274 10.34 26.8 3.45
P/2016 A3 PANSTARRS 0.378 21.36 8.5924 4.789
P/2016 A7 PANSTARRS 0.56662 11.26 16.6374 2.17664
P/2016 CB193 PANSTARRS 0.12092 2.59 18.2968 1.65850
P/2016 G1 PANSTARRS 0.21001 4.15 10.9688 2.04073
P/2016 J1 PANSTARRS 0.22825 5.65 14.329 2.4478
P/2016 J3 STEREO 0.9 10 30 0.5
X/1979 O3 Kowal 0.33 5.44 1.75 2.07
X/1981 R1 Stattmayer 0.26 3.84 11.00 1.28
X/1991 G1 Meyer 0.44 3.73 5.96 1.36
ppendix A: Atmospheric
A
Extinction Tables
The following tables were initially published by Dan Green

in the July 1992 issue of the International Comet Quarterly.
The original paper may be found at http://www.icq.eps.har-
vard.edu./ICQExtinct.html.
Table A.1 “Average” atmospheric extinction in magnitudes for

various elevations above sea level (h, in km)
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3
1 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.16 0.13
10 0.29 0.24 0.21 0.16 0.13
20 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14
30 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.15
40 0.37 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.17
45 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.23 0.19
50 0.44 0.37 0.32 0.25 0.21
55 0.49 0.42 0.36 0.28 0.23
60 0.56 0.48 0.41 0.32 0.26
62 0.60 0.51 0.44 0.34 0.28
64 0.64 0.54 0.47 0.37 0.30
66 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.32
68 0.75 0.64 0.55 0.43 0.35
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 241

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
242 Appendix A: Atmospheric Extinction Tables
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3

70 0.82 0.70 0.60 0.47 0.39
71 0.86 0.73 0.63 0.49 0.40
72 0.91 0.77 0.66 0.52 0.43
73 0.96 0.81 0.70 0.55 0.45
74 1.02 0.86 0.74 0.58 0.48
75 1.08 0.92 0.79 0.62 0.51
76 1.15 0.98 0.84 0.66 0.54
77 1.24 1.05 0.91 0.71 0.58
78 1.34 1.13 0.98 0.76 0.63
79 1.45 1.23 1.06 0.83 0.68
80 1.59 1.34 1.16 0.91 0.74
81 1.75 1.48 1.28 1.00 0.82
82 1.94 1.65 1.42 1.11 0.91
83 2.19 1.86 1.60 1.25 1.03
84 2.50 2.12 1.83 1.43 1.17
85 2.91 2.46 2.13 1.66 1.36
86 3.45 2.93 2.53 1.97 1.62
87 4.23 3.59 3.10 2.42 1.99
88 5.41 4.59 3.96 3.09 2.54
89 7.38 6.26 5.40 4.22 3.46
90 11.24 9.53 8.23 6.42 5.28
Table A.2 “Winter” atmospheric extinction in magnitudes for vari-

ous elevations above sea level (h, in km)
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3
1 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.13
10 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.13
20 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.14
Appendix A: Atmospheric Extinction Tables 243
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3

30 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.15
40 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.17
45 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.18
50 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.20
55 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.26 0.22
60 0.49 0.42 0.37 0.30 0.25
62 0.52 0.45 0.40 0.32 0.27
64 0.56 0.48 0.43 0.34 0.29
66 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.37 0.31
68 0.65 0.57 0.50 0.40 0.34
70 0.72 0.62 0.55 0.44 0.37
71 0.75 0.65 0.57 0.46 0.39
72 0.79 0.69 0.60 0.49 0.41
73 0.84 0.72 0.64 0.52 0.43
74 0.89 0.77 0.68 0.55 0.46
75 0.94 0.82 0.72 0.58 0.49
76 1.01 0.87 0.77 0.62 0.52
77 1.08 0.94 0.82 0.67 0.56
78 1.16 1.01 0.89 0.72 0.60
79 1.26 1.10 0.97 0.78 0.66
80 1.38 1.20 1.06 0.85 0.72
81 1.52 1.32 1.16 0.94 0.79
82 1.70 1.47 1.29 1.05 0.88
83 1.91 1.65 1.46 1.18 0.99
84 2.18 1.89 1.66 1.34 1.13
85 2.53 2.20 1.93 1.56 1.31
244 Appendix A: Atmospheric Extinction Tables
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3

86 3.01 2.61 2.30 1.86 1.56
87 3.69 3.20 2.82 2.28 1.91
88 4.72 4.09 3.60 2.91 2.45
89 6.44 5.58 4.91 3.97 3.34
90 9.80 8.50 7.49 6.05 5.08
Table A.3 “Summer” atmospheric extinction in magnitudes for

various elevations above sea level (h, in km)
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3

1 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.14
10 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.17 0.14
20 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.18 0.15
30 0.37 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.16
40 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.18
45 0.45 0.37 0.32 0.24 0.19
50 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.26 0.21
55 0.55 0.46 0.39 0.30 0.24
60 0.63 0.53 0.45 0.34 0.27
62 0.68 0.56 0.48 0.36 0.29
64 0.72 0.60 0.51 0.39 0.31
66 0.78 0.65 0.55 0.42 0.34
68 0.85 0.70 0.60 0.45 0.36
70 0.93 0.77 0.65 0.50 0.40
71 0.97 0.81 0.69 0.52 0.42
72 1.02 0.85 0.72 0.55 0.44
73 1.08 0.90 0.76 0.58 0.47
Appendix A: Atmospheric Extinction Tables 245
z h = 0 h = 0.5 h = 1 h = 2 h = 3

74 1.15 0.95 0.81 0.61 0.49
75 1.22 1.01 0.86 0.65 0.53
76 1.30 1.08 0.92 0.70 0.56
77 1.40 1.16 0.99 0.75 0.60
78 1.51 1.25 1.07 0.81 0.65
79 1.64 1.36 1.16 0.88 0.71
80 1.79 1.49 1.26 0.96 0.77
81 1.97 1.64 1.39 1.06 0.85
82 2.19 1.83 1.55 1.18 0.95
83 2.47 2.06 1.75 1.32 1.07
84 2.82 2.35 1.99 1.51 1.22
85 3.28 2.73 2.32 1.76 1.41
86 3.90 3.25 2.75 2.09 1.68
87 4.78 3.98 3.38 2.56 2.06
88 6.11 5.09 4.32 3.28 2.63
89 8.33 6.93 5.89 4.47 3.59
90 12.68 10.56 8.97 6.80 5.47
Appendix B: The Phase Angle of a Comet
Dusty comets display a significant phase effect at large phase

angles due to the forward scattering of sunlight from small
particles within their comas. A smaller effect, due to back-
scattering, is also evident at very small phase angles, that is to
say, when the comet is almost opposite the Sun in the sky.
Phase angles may be calculated as follows:
C
α
∆
r
E
R
S
In the above diagram:

S = Sun
E = Earth
C = Comet
R = Radius vector of Earth (i.e., the distance from Earth to
Sun)
r = Radius vector of comet (i.e., distance of comet from
Sun)
Δ = Geocentric distance of comet
α = Phase angle.
The phase angle is defined by

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
248 Appendix B: The Phase Angle of a Comet
Cos a = ( D 2 + r 2 - R 2 ) / 2rD

Alternatively, the phase angle may be calculated by
sin (1 / 2 ) a = (1 / 2 ) Ö ( ( R - r + D ) ( R + r - D ) / rD )

Appendix C: “Lost” Short-Period Comets
Short-period comets can become “lost” for several reasons.

The reason may simply be that the orbit of a particular comet
was not sufficiently well determined at its discovery appari-
tion and the calculated period was therefore inaccurate. For a
comet with a relatively long period (say, a few decades rather
than a few years), this type of error can be quite large. Other
comets have become lost due to drastic alterations in their
orbits resulting from close approaches to one of the large
planets, most frequently Jupiter, whereas others appear to
have been abnormally lustrous at their discovery apparition
and returned to their normal meager brightness
subsequently.
Many short-period comets that were lost through these
factors (sometimes a combination of more than one of them)
have been recovered in recent years thanks to the improve-
ment in both orbital computation and observational tech-
niques. However, a number of objects continue to elude
observers even though they should, theoretically, have made
favorable returns and been readily recoverable. These comets
are thought to have either disintegrated or, if they remain
intact, have ceased either permanently or temporarily to pro-
duce gas and dust.
The following list consists of the short-period objects that
appear most likely to have become “extinct”, either through
total disintegration or through permanent or temporary dor-
mancy. The comets 3D and 5D are the ones most widely

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
250 Appendix C: “Lost” Short-Period Comets
thought to have disintegrated. Some of the others are more

problematic. For instance, the comets Denning-Fujikawa and
Perrine-Mrkos were both lost for several returns after what
were apparently abnormally bright apparitions, only to be
rediscovered decades later at brightness levels more or less
equal to their original sighting. The second of these has again
become lost and maybe this time truly has disintegrated.
However, in view of its history, who can say that it will not
outburst again at some future time?
Another interesting object is Haneda-Campos. This comet
was discovered independently by two visual comet hunters
during its rather close approach to Earth in 1978. That appari-
tion was just about as good as it gets, with closest approach,
perihelion and opposition all happening at about the same
time. The intrinsic brightness and appearance of the comet
were also somewhat variable and it is almost certain that it
was in outburst during its discovery return. It has not been
seen since, however there were no obvious signs of disinte-
gration in 1978. Even though the outer coma became very
diffuse, the final observations revealed a condensed core hav-
ing little resemblance to the elongated debris cloud displayed
by disintegrating comets. Future outbursts should definitely
not be ruled out.
The possibility that one or more of these comets (some of
which were initially rather bright objects) may again outburst
is something of which visual comet hunters should always be
aware. There are precedents for “lost” comets flaring back
into view and although visual searches specifically for these
objects is probably not justified, it might be worth checking
whether any are theoretically well placed before starting the
night’s comet sweep. Past, present and future orbits of peri-
odic comets (including the “lost” ones) are available at
Kazuo Kinoshita’s website at http://jcometobs.web.fc2.com/
index.html.
A quick check to see if any are (hypothetically!) in the sky
takes little time and, just possibly, might prove to be
rewarding!
Appendix C: “Lost” Short-Period Comets 251
COMET PERIOD (Years)

3D/Biela 6.65
5D/Brorsen 5.46
18D/Perrine-Mrkos 6.72
20D/Westphal 61.7
25D/Neujmin 5.43
34D/Gale 11.00
75D/Kohoutek 6.67
83D/Russell 6.10
85D/Boethin 11.81
D/1766 G1 (Helfenzrieder) 4.35
D/1884 O1 (Barnard) 5.38
D/1886 K1 (Brooks) 5.60
D/1894 F1 (Denning) 7.42
D/1895 Q1 (Swift) 7.22
D/1918 W1 (Schorr) 6.71
D/1952 B1 (Harrington-Wilson) 6.38
D/1978 R1 (Haneda-Campos) 5.97
Appendix D: Lunar Phases 2017–2027
New First quarter Full Last

2017 Lunar phases
Jan. 5 Jan. 12 Jan. 19
Jan. 27 Feb. 3 Feb. 10 Feb. 18
Feb. 26 Mar. 5 Mar. 12. Mar. 20
Mar. 27 Apr. 3 Apr. 11 Apr. 19
Apr. 26 May 2 May 10 Map 18
May 25 Jun. 1 Jun. 9 Jun. 17
Jun. 23 Jun. 30 Jul. 9 Jul. 16
Jul. 23 Jul. 30 Aug. 7 Aug. 14
Aug. 21 Aug. 29 Sep. 6 Sep. 13
Sep. 20 Sep. 27 Oct. 5 Oct. 12
Oct. 19 Oct.27 Nov. 4 Nov. 10
Nov. 18 Nov. 26 Dec. 3 Dec. 10
Dec. 18 Dec. 26
2018 Lunar phases
Jan. 1 Jan. 8
Jan. 16 Jan. 24 Jan. 31 Feb. 7

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
254 Appendix D: Lunar Phases 2017–2027

Feb. 15 Feb. 23 Mar. 1 Mar. 9
Mar. 17 Mar.24 Mar. 31 Apr. 8
Apr. 15 Apr. 22 Apr. 29 May 7
May 15 May 21 May 29 Jun. 6
Jun. 13 Jun. 20 Jun. 28 Jul. 6
Jul. 12 Jul. 19 Jul. 27 Aug. 4
Aug. 11 Aug. 18 Aug. 26 Sep. 2
Sep. 9 Sep. 16 Sep. 24 Oct. 2
Oct. 8 Oct. 16 Oct. 24 Oct. 31
Nov. 7 Nov. 15 Nov. 23 Nov. 29
Dec. 7 Dec. 15 Dec. 22 Dec. 29
2019 Lunar phases
Jan. 5 Jan. 14 Jan. 21 Jan 27
Feb. 4 Feb. 12 Feb. 19 Feb. 26
Mar. 6 Mar. 14 Mar. 20 Mar. 28
Apr. 5 Apr. 12 Apr. 19 Apr. 26
May 4 May 11 May 18 May 26
Jun. 3 Jun. 10 Jun. 17 Jun. 25
Jul. 2 Jul. 9 Jul. 16 Jul. 24
Jul. 31 Aug. 7 Aug. 15 Aug. 23
Aug. 30 Sep. 5 Sep. 14 Sep. 21
Sep. 28 Oct. 5 Oct. 13 Oct. 21
Oct. 27 Nov. 4 Nov. 12 Nov. 19
Nov. 26 Dec. 4 Dec. 12 Dec. 18
Dec. 26
Appendix D: Lunar Phases 2017–2027 255

2020 Lunar phases
Feb. 23 Mar. 2 Mar. 9 Mar. 16
Apr. 22 Apr. 30 May 7 May 14
Oct. 16 Oct. 23 Oct. 31 Nov. 8
Nov. 15 Nov. 21 Nov. 30 Dec. 7
Dec. 14 Dec. 21 Dec. 29
2021 Lunar phases
Jan. 6
Feb. 11 Feb. 19 Feb. 27 Mar. 5
Mar. 13 Mar. 21 Mar. 28 Apr. 4
Aug. 8 Aug. 15 Aug. 22 Aug. 30
Sep. 6 Sep. 13 Sep. 20 Sep. 28

2022 Lunar phases
Jan. 2 Jan. 9 Jan. 17 Jan. 25
Apr. 30 May 8 May 16 May 22
Jun. 28 Jul. 6 Jul. 13 Jul. 20
Dec. 23 Dec. 29
2023 Lunar phases
Jan. 6 Jan. 14
Jan. 21 Jan. 28 Feb. 5 Feb. 13
Mar. 21 Mar. 28 Apr. 6 Apr. 13
May 19 May 27 Jun. 3 Jun. 10

Dec. 12 Dec. 19 Dec. 26
2024 Lunar phases
Jan. 3
Feb. 9 Feb. 16 Feb. 24 Mar. 3
Mar. 10 Mar. 17 Mar. 25 Apr. 1
Sep. 2 Sep. 11 Sep. 17 Sep. 24
Dec. 30
2025 Lunar phases
Feb. 27 Mar. 6 Mar. 14 Mar. 22
Apr. 27 May 4 May 12 May 20
Jun. 25 Jul. 2 Jul. 10 Jul. 17

Oct. 21 Oct. 29 Nov. 5 Nov. 12
Dec. 19 Dec. 27
2026 Lunar phases
Jan. 3 Jan. 10
Jan. 18 Jan. 25 Feb. 1 Feb. 9
Mar. 18 Mar. 25 Apr. 1 Apr. 10
Jul. 14 Jul. 21 Jul. 29 Aug. 5
2027 Lunar phases
Jan. 7 Jan. 15 Jan. 22 Jan. 29

Nov. 27 Dec. 6 Dec. 13 Dec. 20
Dec. 27
Glossary of Terms
Active asteroid An asteroid displaying comet-like, or super-

ficially comet-like, activity, not necessarily caused by the
sublimation of ices. For example, a dust coma and/or tail may
result from a collision between an asteroid and meteorite or
from the disruption of an asteroid through rotational instabil-
ity. Active asteroids orbiting within the main Asteroid Belt,
between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, that display sublima-
tion-driven cometary activity are also known as “main-belt
comets.”
Altazimuth telescope mount A telescope mount enabling
motion in a horizontal (in azimuth) and vertical direction (in
altitude). This type of mounting has traditionally been
favored by comet hunters.
Aphelion For an object following an elliptical orbit around
the Sun, the point in distance and time where and when that
object is furthest from the Sun in its orbit.
Arc minutes There are 60 min of arc (denoted as 60’) in 1°.
The disc of the Sun and full Moon are about 30 arc minutes
or one half of a degree in diameter and there are 90° from the
horizon to the zenith. There are 60 s of arc (denoted as 60”)
in 1 min of arc.
Astrometry The careful, precise measurement of the posi-
tion of astronomical objects, usually made with respect to
standard catalogs of star positions.
Astronomical Unit (AU) A measure of distance, normally
used for giving the distances of objects within the Solar
System. One Astronomical Unit (denoted as AU) is approxi-
mately equal to the mean Earth-Sun distance, i.e., about
93,000,000 miles, or 150,000,000 km. Formally, the AU is actu-
ally slightly less than Earth’s mean distance from the Sun
(semi-major axis) because it is the radius of a circular orbit of
negligible mass (and unperturbed by other planets) that
revolves around the Sun in a specific period of time. Its pre-
cise value was defined by the International Astronomical
Union in 2012 as equal to 149,597,870.700 km, or
149,597,870,700 m.
262 Glossary of Terms
Azimuth Angular distance measured clockwise around the

observer’s horizon in units of degrees; astronomers usually
take north to be 0°, east to be 90°, south to be 180°, and west
to be 270°.
Barycenter The center of mass of a system of bodies as, for
example, the Solar System. When a comet is well beyond the
orbit of the planets, it behaves dynamically as if the Sun and
major planets are a single object of summed mass, and the
center of this mass (called the barycenter of the solar system)
is offset somewhat from the Sun. “Original” and “future”
orbits of long-period comets are computed for this barycen-
ter, while perturbed, osculating orbits of currently observed
objects in the inner Solar System are computed for heliocen-
tric orbits.
Bolide The name given to a bright exploding meteor.
CCD This denotes a “charge-coupled device,” that is to say,
a very sensitive electronic device that has been revolutioniz-
ing astronomy in recent decades. CCD cameras are com-
posed of silicon chips that are sensitive to light, changing
detected photons of light into electronic signals that can then
be used to make images of astronomical objects or to analyze
how much light is being received from such objects. CCDs
require computers for reduction of data and can detect much
fainter objects than conventional photographs.
Coma A comet’s “atmosphere” composed of dust and/or
various gases surrounding its nucleus. The coma is not a true
atmosphere in so far as the material comprising it is not
retained by the nucleus. Because the gravitational attraction
of the latter is weak, the coma material escapes into sur-
rounding space as it is released from the nucleus.
Comet A celestial body orbiting the Sun that displays (at least
during a portion of its orbit) some diffuseness and/or a “tail” of
debris that points generally in the anti-solar direction.
Declination One element of the astronomical coordinate
system on the sky that is used by astronomers. Declination,
which can be thought of as latitude on Earth projected onto
the sky, is usually denoted by the lower-case Greek letter
delta and is measured north (+) and south (−) of the celestial
Glossary of Terms 263
equator in degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc. The celestial

equator is defined as being at declination zero (0) degrees;
the north and south celestial poles are defined as being at +90
and −90°, respectively.
Degree A unit used in the measurement of angles, heavily
used particularly in astronomy. Following ancient Babylonian
mathematics, a circle is divided into 360 even units of arc,
each of which constitutes 1°. The entire sky, therefore, spans
360°. One degree is composed of 60 min of arc or 3600 s of
arc.
Ecliptic The apparent path of the Sun against the sky back-
ground (celestial sphere); formally, the mean plane of Earth’s
orbit around the Sun.
Elongation Angular distance of a celestial object from the
Sun in the sky.
Enthalpy A thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the total
heat content of a system. It is equal to the internal energy of
a system plus the product of pressure and volume.
Enthalpy of solution The enthalpy of solution is the enthalpy
change associated with the dissolution of a substance in a
solvent at constant pressure, resulting in infinite dilution.
Heat released through enthalpy of solution as super-volatile
gases dissolve in liquid methane beneath the surface of 29P/
Schwassmann-Wachmann has been proposed as the trigger
for the large brightness outbursts frequently experienced by
this comet.
Ephemeris (plural: ephemerides) Pronounced ee-FEM-er-
is (ef-fi-MARE-uh-deez). A table listing specific data of a
moving object, as a function of time. Ephemerides usually
contain right ascension and declination, apparent angle of
elongation from the Sun (in degrees) and magnitude of the
object; other quantities frequently included in ephemerides
are an object’s distances from the Sun and Earth (given in
AU), usually given as Roman letter “r,” and Greek letter
“Δ,” respectively. The object’s phase angle and the Moon
phase may also be included.
Equatorial mount An equatorial mount is a mount for
instruments that follows the rotation of the sky by having one
rotational axis parallel to that of Earth’s axis of rotation.
Equinox Either of the two points (vernal, autumnal) on the

celestial sphere where the ecliptic (which is the apparent path
of the Sun on the sky) intersects the celestial equator. Due to
precession, this point moves over time, so positions of stars in
catalogs and on atlases are usually referred to a “mean equa-
tor and equinox” of a specified standard epoch. Prior to 1992,
most astronomers used “equinox 1950.0,” but since then
equinox 2000 has been the standard. The differences in an
object’s position when given in equinoxes 1950.0 and 2000.0
amounts to several arc minutes.
Extinction, atmospheric The diminishing of light from
astronomical objects due to Earth’s atmosphere, in which
molecules (air, dust, etc.) of the atmosphere absorb, reflect
and refract light before it reaches the ground. Extinction
becomes a severe problem for astronomers when objects are
viewed close to (especially within 20° of) the local horizon.
Gegenschein Literally meaning “counterglow,” this phe-
nomenon of the zodiacal light arises from sunlight back-
scattered from interplanetary dust located outside of Earth’s
orbit and opposite to the Sun in the sky.
Head The nucleus and coma of a comet are collectively
referred to as the head.
Heliocentric orbit A heliocentric orbit is one based on the
Sun as one of the two foci of the (elliptical) orbit (or as the
center of a circular one).
Heliocentric magnitude This refers to the brightness of an
object as would be seen from a heliocentric distance of 1 AU
(i.e., from a distance of 1 AU from the Sun).
m1 (total magnitude) Total, integrated magnitude of a
comet’s head (meaning coma + nuclear condensation). This
can be estimated visually, as the comet’s “total visual magni-
tude.” The variable m1 is usually found in ephemerides pre-
dicting a comet’s future motion, position on the sky and
brightness.
m2 (nuclear magnitude) The magnitude value measured (or
predicted) for a comet’s nuclear condensation. Because the
true or physical nucleus of a comet is rarely observed from
Earth, the m2 values are fraught with problems as to their
true meaning. They are also extremely dependent upon

instrumentation (aperture, focal-ratio, magnification) and
wavelength, and their relation to m1 values are not at all
straightforward. Nuclear magnitudes are chiefly used for
astrometric purposes, in which predictions are made for the
brightness of the comet’s nuclear condensation so that
astrometrists can gauge how faint the condensation is likely
to be and thus how long an exposure is needed to get a good,
measurable image. Such predictions have little relevance to
visual observations.
Magnitude The unit used to describe the brightness of
astronomical objects. The smaller the numerical value, the
brighter the object. The human eye can detect stars to 6th or
7th magnitude on a dark, clear night far from city lights; in
suburbs or cities, stars may only be visible to mag. 2, 3 or 4,
due to light pollution. The brightest star, Sirius, shines at
visual magnitude −1.5. Jupiter can get about as bright as
visual magnitude −3 and Venus as bright as −4. The full Moon
is near magnitude −13, and the Sun near mag. −26.
Main-belt comet A term given to a class of objects moving
in stable orbits typical of asteroids in the main Asteroid Belt,
between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, but which neverthe-
less display periods of comet-like activity, apparently driven
by sublimating ices.
Meteors Small rocky and/or icy particles that are swept up
by Earth in its orbit around the Sun. Also called “shooting
stars” or “fireballs” if at least as bright as Venus, they travel
across the sky in a very short time, from less than a second to
several seconds, and they do so because they are only a mat-
ter of tens of miles above the surface of Earth. Meteor show-
ers are generally thought to be produced by the debris left by
comets as the latter orbit the Sun.
Meteorite A natural particle reaching the surface of Earth
from space after traveling through Earth’s atmosphere.
Meteoroid A natural particle in space before it enters
Earth’s atmosphere, or a similar particle in space that does
not encounter Earth.
Non-gravitational forces Forces changing a cometary orbit

that are not due to gravitational effects. They are attributed
to forces arising from the sublimation of gases from the
nucleus, the so-called “rocket effect.”
Orbit The path of one object about another (used here for
an object orbiting the Sun).
Orbital elements Parameters (numbers) that determine an
object’s location and motion in its orbit around another
object. In the case of Solar System objects such as comets and
planets, one must ultimately account for perturbing gravita-
tional effects of numerous other planets in the Solar System
(not merely the Sun), and when such account is made, one
has what are called “osculating elements” (which are always
changing with time and which therefore must have a stated
epoch of validity). Six elements are usually used to determine
uniquely the orbit of an object in orbit around the Sun, with
a seventh element (the epoch, or time, for which the elements
are valid) added when planetary perturbations are taken into
consideration. The six orbital elements used for comets are
usually the following:
time of perihelion passage (T)
perihelion distance (q), usually given in AU
eccentricity (e) of the orbit
argument of perihelion (ω)
longitude of the ascending node (Ω)
inclination of the orbit with respect to the ecliptic (i).
The mean equinox must be specified for these three
angles.
Perihelion The point where (and when) an object orbiting
the Sun is closest to it.
Perturbations Gravitational influences (“tugging” and
“pulling”) of one astronomical body on another. Comets are
strongly perturbed by the gravitational forces of the major
planets, particularly by the largest planet in the Solar System,
Jupiter. These perturbations must be allowed for in orbit
computations, and they lead to what are known as “osculat-
ing elements” (which means that the orbital element num-
bers change from day to day and month to month due to
continued perturbations by the major planets, so that an

epoch is necessarily stated to denote the particular date that
the elements are valid).
Precession A slow but relatively uniform motion of Earth’s
rotational axis that causes changes in the coordinate systems
used for mapping the sky. Earth’s axis of rotation does not
always point in the same direction, due to gravitational tugs
by the Sun and Moon (known as lunisolar precession) and by
the major planets (known as planetary precession).
Radiation pressure Electromagnetic radiation (for exam-
ple, visible light, infrared radiation, X-rays, etc.) has the prop-
erty of being able to transfer momentum to materials and
thereby push them away from the source of radiation. Though
negligible for large bodies, this force is very significant for
particles having the dimensions of the finest cometary dust,
and it is this phenomenon that propels solid particles into the
dust tails of comets.
Reflector A telescope that uses as its primary optical ele-
ment a mirror. Most large telescopes in use today by both
amateur and professional astronomers are reflecting
telescopes.
Refractor A telescope that uses as its primary optical ele-
ment a lens. Binoculars are a type of refractor.
Right ascension One element of the astronomical coordi-
nate system on the sky, which can be thought of as longitude
on Earth projected onto the sky. Right ascension is usually
denoted by the lower-case Greek letter alpha and is mea-
sured eastward in hours, minutes and seconds of time from
the vernal equinox. There are 24 h of right ascension, though
the 24-h line is always taken as 0 h. More rarely, right ascen-
sion is given in degrees, in which case there are 360° of right
ascension to make a complete circuit of the sky.
Rock comet An asteroidal object displaying a form of
comet-like activity apparently driven by thermal disruption
of hydrated minerals rather than sublimating ices. The aster-
oid 3200 Phaethon, parent object of the Geminid meteor
shower, is an object of this type.
The term is also applied to certain extrasolar planets that

orbit so close to their parent stars that surface rocks vaporize
into comet-like comas and tails.
Scattering Small particles of the order of 1 μm (one tenth of
a mm) in size have the property of not simply reflecting light
and making shadows but also of scattering the light that falls
on them in all directions. In certain situations, forward-scat-
tered light, appearing where one might expect to see a
shadow, is actually brighter than back-scattered, or “reflected”
light. Dusty comets observed close to the Sun in the sky and
located between Earth and the Sun (and therefore at large
phase angles) have their apparent brightness significantly
enhanced due to forward-scattering of sunlight by the parti-
cles of dust in their comas.
Solar wind Ionized gases carrying magnetic fields are blown
off the Sun at velocities in the range of 450 km/s. It is this
“wind” that propels the ion tails of comets.
Striae Narrow, rectilinear structures sometimes observed
within the dust tails of comets. They arise from relatively
large particles that were released from the nucleus at the
same time and later disintegrate into fragments. The parent
particles of striae, released in a stream over time, form the
concave edge of curving dust tails, and as those released
together at various times disrupt, patterns of striae are pro-
duced more or less across the breadth of the tail.
Sublimation The change of a solid (such as ice) directly into
a gaseous state (bypassing the liquid state). This happens in
the vacuum of space with comets, as the heating effects of
solar radiation cause ices in comets to “steam off” as gases
into space. The ice molecules present in the nucleus actually
break up (or dissociate) into smaller atoms and molecules
after leaving the nucleus in gas form.
Synchrones The loci of particles released from the nucleus
simultaneously. They are sometimes evident as straight or
moderately curved structures within the dust tail that are not,
however, to be confused with striae.
Syndynes (syndynames) The loci of particles within dust
tails that are subjected to equal force. Particles of equal size
are subjected to the same degree of force, resulting from the

opposing push away from the Sun caused by solar radiation
pressure countered by the gravitational attraction toward it.
The resulting path of the particle depends upon the degree to
which it is affected by either, which, in turn, depends upon its
size, large particles being affected more by solar gravity and
less by the radiation pressure than small ones.
Universal Time (UT, or UTC) A measure of time used by
astronomers. UT conforms (within a close approximation) to
the mean daily (apparent) motion of the Sun. UT is deter-
mined from observations of the diurnal (daily) motions of the
stars for an observer on Earth. UT is usually used for astro-
nomical observations. Zero hours UT corresponds to local
midnight at Greenwich (zero terrestrial longitude).
Vernal equinox The point on the celestial sphere where the
Sun crosses the celestial equator moving northward, which
corresponds to the beginning of spring in the Northern
Hemisphere and the beginning of autumn in the Southern
Hemisphere (in the third week of March). This point corre-
sponds to zero (0) hours of right ascension.
Zenith The point directly overhead in the sky.
Zodiacal light A general glow throughout the sky resulting
from the scattering of sunlight by interplanetary dust. It is
brightest near the Sun and along the ecliptic. The zodiacal
light pyramids seen before dawn and following evening twi-
light are often referred to as the zodiacal light.
Zodiacal light pyramid A triangular glow seen on the west-
ern horizon after evening twilight and on the eastern horizon
before morning twilight. It is the brightest component of the
zodiacal light.
Author Index 271
AUTHOR INDEX
A Ephorus, 4, 6
Alcisthenes, 5 Epigenes, 5
Alcock, G.E.D., 87, 88, 128, 217, 218
Apian, P., 12, 13
Aristotle, 3, 5, 43, 48 F
Armstrong, N., 80, 81 Fabry, L., 43
Fayet, C., 180
Finlay, W., 159
B Forbes, G., 213
Barnard, E.E., 215, 216 Fujikawa, S., 218
Becvar, A., 218
Bessel, F., 177
Beyer, M., 85–86 G
Biela, W., 15–17 Galileo, G., 6, 43
Bobrovnikoff, N., 45, 86, 87, 132 Giacobini, M., 144, 147, 215
Borrelly, A., 164 Giclas, H., 180
Bradfield, W.A., 164, 216, 217
Brooks, W., 174, 177, 215
Bullock, J.B., 96 H
Halley, E., 9, 10, 12, 14, 47
C Hartley, M., 167
Caesar, J., 12 Herschel, C., 141, 211–213, 215
Chodas, P., 222 Herschel, W., 211
Coggia, J., 150, 213 Hevelius, J., 7, 127
Crommelin, A.C.D., 48, 214 Honda, M., 138, 216
Cysat, J., 127 Howell, E., 157
Hynek, J.A., 80
D
Daniel, Z., 217 I
d’Arrest, H., 162 Ikeya, K., 12, 218
Da Vinci, L., 7
K
E Kepler, J., 6, 7, 119
Edgeworth, K., 54 Kinoshita, K., 137
Encke, J.F., 141, 174 Kracht, R., 222, 223

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
272 Author Index
Kresak, L., 144, 218 Rigollet, R., 213

Kreutz, H., 221 Roemer, E., 25, 28, 34,
Kuiper, G., 54 174, 181
Kushida, Y., 172 Rumker, C., 141
L S
Laplace, P., 43, 44 Schaumasse, M., 180
Levy, D., 218 Schiaparelli, J., 44
Lexell, A.J., 209 Schwassmann, A., 191
Lovejoy, T., 66, 128 Schwittek, W., 76
Lyttleton, R.A., 20–26, 28, 46, 193 Sekanina, Z., 106, 123, 124, 126,
222, 223
M Seki, T., 218
Machholz, D., 66, 67, 218 Seneca, L., 4–6
Mechain, P., 141, 209–211 Somerville, M., 211
Messier, C., 207–211 Stephan, E., 150
Miles, R., 193, 194 Swift, L., 16, 215
Mori, H., 218
Morris, C.S., 74, 84, 132
Mrkos, A., 138, 177, 218 T
Tempel, W., 16, 183
Thatcher, A.E., 16
N Trouvelot, E., 127
Nakano, S., 137 Tuttle, H., 16
Newton, I., 9, 12, 47
Nolke, F., 45
V
Van Flandern, T., 49
O Von Humboldt, A., 14
Olbers, W., 13, 177 Von Seeliger, H., 43
Oort, J., 49, 51–53 Vozarova, M., 218
Opik, E., 52 Vsekhsvyatskij, S., 46–48, 60, 90
Oterma, L., 150
P W
Pajdusakova, L., 138, 218 Wachmann, A., 191
Peltier, L., 216, 217 Weissman, P., 54
Perrine, C.D., 215 Whipple, F., 26, 27, 29, 32, 35, 46,
Pingre, A., 127 51, 114
Pons, J., 141, 174, 213–215 Winnecke, F., 127, 213, 215
Ptolemy, C., 6 Wirtanen, C.A., 152
R Z
Reinmuth, K., 192 Zhang, D., 12
Richter, N.B., 193 Zinner, E., 147
Subject Index 273
SUBJECT INDEX
A Comets, 11, 22, 29, 30, 35, 47, 73, 92,

Active asteroids, 63 94, 99, 102, 104, 127,
American Association of Variable 137–139, 141, 142, 144,
Star Observers (AAVSO), 79 145, 147, 148, 150, 152,
Anti-tails, 37, 39, 129, 130 153, 155, 157, 159, 162,
Atmospheric extinction, 80–82 164, 167, 170, 172, 174,
Averted vision, 110 177, 178, 180, 181, 183,
184, 186, 188, 191–215,
226–230, 233
B 372 BC, 4, 5
Babylonians, 4 214 BC, 222
Back-scattering of sunlight, 94 44 BC, 12
Brightness 1106 AD, 12, 222, 223
estimates (methods of making 1618, 127
same), 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 1652, 127
87, 131, 132, 172 1680 V1, 9, 10, 12
outbursts, 22, 30, 89–97, 102, 1702 D1, 221, 222
104, 105, 147, 191, 1769 P1 (Messier), 127, 208
192, 195 1793 A1 (Gregory), 210
surges, 64, 91, 93, 94, 102, 104, 1801 N1 (Pons), 210, 214
159, 183 1811 F1, 13, 18, 26, 214
1843 D1, 19, 219, 221, 222
1858 L1 (Donati), 36, 100, 119,
C 127, 144
Centaurs 1861 J1 (Tebbutt), 96
Echeclus, 195 1861 (Thatcher), 16, 17
Central condensation, 26, 31, 32, 84, 1874 H1(Coggia), 31, 100, 125,
96, 99–102, 104, 105, 132, 127, 150
175, 195 1880 C1, 13, 219, 222
Chinese astronomers (ancient), 3, 13 1882 K1(eclipse comet of May),
Coma 216
dust, 18, 21, 35, 68, 94–97, 101, 1882 R1, 19, 20, 23, 29, 219, 222
104 1887 B1, 177, 221, 222
gases, 18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 35, 1927X1 (Skjellerup-Maristany),
37, 45, 68, 93, 101, 106, 95, 191
120, 131 1945 X1 (du Toit), 221, 223
neutral hydrogen, 27, 28 1957 R1 (Arend-Roland), 121, 130

Field Guide, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45435-1
274 Subject Index
Comets (cont.) 19P/Borrelly, 164, 226

1962 C1 (Seki-Lines), 121, 125, 21P/Giacobini-Zinner, 147,
130, 218 148, 226
1963 A1 (Ikeya), 218, 223 24P/Schaumaasse, 180, 181,
1963 R1 (Pereyra), 221 226
1964 L1 (Tomita-Gerber-Honda), 26P/Grigg-Skjellerup, 214, 226
117, 218 29P/Schwassmann-
1965 S1 (Ikeya-Seki), 35, 121, 125, Wachmann (1), 22, 94, 104,
128, 218, 222, 223 191–206, 226
1969 T1 (Tago-Sato-Kosaka), 27 38P/Stephan-Oterma, 150, 226
1969 Y1 (Bennett) 39P/Oterma, 226
1970 K1 (White-Ortiz-Bolelli), 221 41P/Tuttle-Giacobini-Kresak,
1973 E1 (Kohoutek), 27 144, 145, 226
1975 V1 (West), 218 42P/Neujmin, 30, 226
1980 O1 (Cernis-Petrauskas), 130 45P/Honda-Mrkos-
1980 E1 (Bowell), 44 Pajdusakova, 138, 139,
1983 H1 (IRAS-Araki-Alcock), 87, 188, 226
88, 217 46P/Wirtanen, 152, 153, 226
1983 J1 (Sugano-Saigusa- 53P/Van Biesbroeck, 30, 227
Fujikawa), 74 55P/Tempel-Tuttle, 227
1989 Y1 (Austin), 118 67P/Churyumov-
1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp), 89, 119 Gerasimenko, 29, 227
1996 B2 (Hyakutake), 35, 88 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann
2006 P1 (McNaught), 121 (3), 104, 227
2011 W3 (Lovejoy), 128, 223 88P/Howell, 157, 227
2013 X1 (PANSTARRS), 93 103P/Hartley, 167, 228
listed discoveries by 109P/Swift-Tuttle, 228
Herschel (C.), 141, 211–213, 122P/de Vico, 228
215 144P/Kushida, 172, 229
Mechain, 141, 209, 210 153P/Ikeya-Zhang, 229
Messier, 127, 207–209, 211 209P/LINEAR, 73, 99, 230
Pons, 141, 174, 213–215 332P/Ikeya-Murakami, 233
“lost” (list thereof), 142 D/1993 F2 (Shoemaker-Levy),
numbered (list thereof), 225 47
Periodic P/2016 BA 14 (PANSTARRS), 73
1P/Halley, 11, 102, 226 Unnumbered (list thereof),
2P/Encke, 137, 141, 142, 155, 235–239
170, 186, 210, Comparison stars, 77, 79–82, 84–88,
213, 226 100
3D/Biela, 15-17, 115, 249, 251 “Coruscations” in tail, 127, 128
6P/d’Arrest, 162 Cryovolcanism, 94, 194, 195
8P/Tuttle, 29, 210, 226
10P/Tempel, 102, 183, 184
12P/Pons-Brooks, 35, 102, D
174, 177 Deep impact, 167
13P/Olbers, 177, 178, 226 Deep Space 1, 164
15P/Finlay, 159, 226 Degree of condensation (of coma),
17P/Holmes, 92, 226 98–100, 131, 132
Subject Index 275
Diameter of coma, 17–19, 25, 27–29, K

74, 84, 85, 88, 89, 97, 98, Kreutz comet family. See Sungrazers
131, 167, 180, 191 Kuiper Belt, 54
“Dirty snowball” comet model. See
Icy-conglomerate comet
model M
Disconnection events (DEs), Mars, 7, 49, 194
114–117, 132 Meteors, 5, 14–17, 32, 53, 100, 147
Drawings of comets, 132 Meteor showers, 17, 32
Dynamically new comets, 53–56 Draconids, 147
Leonids, 15–17
Lyrids, 15–17
E Perseids, 15–17, 100
Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. See Kuiper
belt
Elliptical orbits, 15, 21, 44, 51, 141, N
150, 180, 213 Non-gravitational effects, 34,
45, 180
Nova, 76, 192, 217
F Nucleus (of comet), 11
Forward scattering of sunlight,
95, 96
O
Oort Cloud, 52–54, 65, 91
G Opik-Oort cloud. See Oort cloud
Gegenschein, 215
“Gravel bank” comet model, 17, 19, 32
Gravity (theory of), 9, 13, 29, 43, 44, P
121, 194 Phaethon, 53
Greeks (ancient), 4 Phase angle, 94–97
Pluto, 54
Position angle (PA)
H of secondary nuclei, 113
Hyperbolic orbits, 44–46 tails, 103, 113
Purkinje effect, 83
I
Icy-conglomerate comet R
model, 26 Rays (in comet tails), 11, 36, 37, 40,
Interstellar theory of comet origins, 54, 114, 119, 120, 127, 132
43–46, 51, 52 Rock comet, 53
J S
Jupiter, 6, 22, 29, 44, 46–49, 52, 54, “Sandbank” comet model, 20,
95, 152, 164, 191, 209, 215, 24–30, 193
219 Saturn, 22, 44, 47, 48, 191
276 Subject Index
Secondary comets, 15, 103–106, 159, Sungrazers (sungrazing comets), 19,

160 23, 24, 28, 29, 48, 64, 125,
Secondary nuclei, 103, 113, 160 128, 218, 221–224
“Shadow of nucleus”, 31, 125–126 Swan-band filters, 68, 97
Skalnate Pleso Observatory, 218 Synchrones, 120, 122–125
Sky crossbow, 111 Syndynes, 124
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
(SOHO), 64, 121, 222, 223,
233, 235–237, 239 T
Solar Maximum Mission (SOLAR Tail flare, 117
MAX), 222 Tails (of comets)
Solar System (as place of estimating the length thereof,
comet origin), 24, 44, 5–7, 13, 18, 21, 23, 35, 37,
46–49 42, 78, 109–111, 113, 114,
Solar Terrestrial Relation 117–121, 123–125, 127,
Observatory (STEREO), 129
117, 222, 240 Triton, 194
Solar wind, 18, 37, 114, 117
SOLWIND, 222
Star charts, 77, 103, 109–111, 113 U
Striae, 121–125, 132 Universal Time (UT), 69, 76

Visually Observing Comets (Astronomer&#39;s Pocket Field Guide)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visually Observing Comets (Astronomer&#39;s Pocket Field Guide)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Astronomer’s Pocket

David A. J. Seargent Field Guide

Visually Observing Comets

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/

ISSN 2198-0756 ISSN 2198-0764 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017933963

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

Traditionally, comet observing/hunting and variable star observing

to find minor planets or nearby stars through their large proper

extraterrestrial solar observatory—has robbed visual observers of few

The most important observations are those determining the total

Cowra, New South Wales, Australia David A.J. Seargent

My appreciation is extended to the staff of Springer Publishing, par-

Part I Introducing Comets

Part II The Role of Visual Comet Observers

Part III The Nuts and Bolts of Comet Observing

16 The Kreutz Sungrazing Comet Group:

David A.J. Seargent is a former part-time lecturer in philosophy with

COMETS THROUGHOUT HISTORY

Records of these strange apparitions have been found on Chinese oracle

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Comets were noticed by other ancient cultures as well, and in most

Although we have no extant writings in which his ideas are presented, we

Although completely incorrect, Aristotle’s model does have some observa-

the same object that, according to Seneca, was described by Ephorus.

On the other hand, Galileo’s younger contemporary, Johannes Kepler

about the composition of these bodies, but Kepler’s understanding of com-

Part of the difficulty in understanding the physical nature of comets con-

By applying Newton’s theory of gravity, his colleague, Edmond Halley

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Fig. 2.1 The Great Comet of 1680 over Rotterdam. (Painting by Lieve

Three groups of cometary apparitions were suspected by Halley as having

TOWARD THE MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF COMETS

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

global conflagration. Disturbingly, even as late as 1960, at least some sec-

A great advance in the understanding of the physical nature of comets was

Although a number of scientists continued to speculate that the great

Something remarkable happened during the computed 1872 return, but

The answer to the dilemma of comet appearances seemed to have been

As an aside, it is interesting to consider how fortuitous the discovery of

The model of comets as dense agglomerations of meteoroid-­like particles

The actual gravel-bank—the agglomeration of particles of varying sizes—

In broad terms, therefore, this model appeared to explain the appearance

There were other difficulties as well. Certain features sometimes observed

Furthermore, the gravel-bank model found it difficult to explain how several

Around the middle of last century, two astronomers proposed radically

Fig. 3.3 The Great Comet of 1882, an example of a very intense dust

Lyttleton even attempted an ingenious explanation for the sudden bright-

As possible observational support for his theory, Lyttleton pointed to an

Furthermore, at the time that Lyttleton was writing, a second comet

Wachmann. (As an interesting aside, Comet Oterma experienced a pro-

Lyttleton’s theory was certainly attractive in so far as it attempted to

As a final word on Lyttleton’s theory, we note that most of the observa-

Indeed, really enormous comets having diameters in excess of 100 km

Other cometary phenomena that were either left unexplained or unsatis-

Although perhaps it may appear counterintuitive at first sight, Whipple’s

of gas at perihelion in the manner expected for a gravel-bank or diffuse

Whipple also demonstrated that, unlike a mere agglomeration of meteor-

calculations of the past orbits of two short-period comets, 42P/Neujmin

Similarly, unusually active regions on the surface of an icy nucleus nicely

Nevertheless, non-gravitational effects are readily explained by the icy

THE FORMATION OF TAILS

Visually Observing Comets (Astronomer's Pocket Field Guide)

Visually Observing Comets (Astronomer's Pocket Field Guide)

Cowra, New South Wales, Australia David A.J. Seargent

Part II The Role of Visual Comet Observers

The model of comets as dense agglomerations of meteoroid-like particles

Theories Based on Interstellar Origin

Theories Based on Solar System Origin

hat Instruments Are Most Suitable for Visual Comet

nowing Which Comets Are Visible and How to Find

Estimating the Brightness of a Comet