Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

More on C/2002V1 brightness

Expand Messages
  • terryjlovejoy
    First of all I would like to apologise for a mistake in a previous post regarding the brightening trend of Comet C/2002 V1. This had a computational error
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      First of all I would like to apologise for a mistake in a previous
      post regarding the brightening trend of Comet C/2002 V1. This had a
      computational error that indicated that the comet was brightening at
      an inverse 4 or 5 power law as determined by an alternative
      photometic method. Correcting this error I find good agreement with
      Seiichi's current n=12 brightening trend. 3 further observations
      from November 9, 22 and 30 also support this.

      Additionally, when revisiting the calculations, I found that
      intensity of the outer coma fades in good agreement with an inverse
      square law. This implies that a very faint outer coma does not have
      a great impact on the overall brightness of the coma. To put this in
      perspective, my November 9 estimate increased from mag. 15.1 to 14.8
      when raising the photometric aperture from 1' to 3' diameter.

      From this I am now convinced that the current rapid brightening is
      actually real and wonder if this is result of the nucleus containing
      a large amount of water in proportion to other volatiles? If this
      were the case then we might see the initial rapid brightening
      steadily decline to a more normal power 3 or 4 rate by the time the
      comet reaches 1 AU from the sun. Presumeably, then the true absolute
      magnitude might be as high as 8 making the comet similiar to the two
      Machholz sun-approaching comets of the mid-late eighties.

      Terry
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.