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

04F0011

Expand Messages
  • Jure Skvarc
    Some of you might have noticed an unusually bright object 04F0011 on NEOCP. Although on discovery images we didn t see any coma, my only reasonable explanation
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 16 4:39 AM
      Some of you might have noticed an unusually bright object 04F0011 on NEOCP.
      Although on discovery images we didn't see any coma, my only reasonable
      explanation of this is a comet in outburst. According to some high accuracy
      photometry just published on NEOCP, this object is also brightening
      rapidly. So, apart from astrometry, I think it would be very useful to get
      some deep, high resolution images as well as spectra and photometry of this
      object. I asked some astronomers on La Palma, but the weather is not very
      promising here. Thank you.

      Jure Skvarč


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Roberto Haver
      Hi to all, Perhaps I will have the possibility to make photometry with more filters this evening. Roberto Haver 157 Frasso Sabino
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 16 6:18 AM
        Hi to all,
        Perhaps I will have the possibility to make photometry with more filters this evening.
        Roberto Haver
        157 Frasso Sabino

        > ==========================
        > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:39:58 +0100
        > From: Jure Skvarc <jskvarc@...>
        > To: mpml@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: {MPML} 04F0011
        > ==========================
        >
        > Some of you might have noticed an unusually bright object 04F0011
        > on NEOCP.
        > Although on discovery images we didn't see any coma, my only
        > reasonable
        > explanation of this is a comet in outburst. According to some
        > high accuracy
        > photometry just published on NEOCP, this object is also brightening
        > rapidly. So, apart from astrometry, I think it would be very
        > useful to get
        > some deep, high resolution images as well as spectra and photometry
        > of this
        > object. I asked some astronomers on La Palma, but the weather
        > is not very
        > promising here. Thank you.
        >
        > Jure Skvarč
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        >
        > Posts to this list or information found within may be freely
        > used, with the stipulation that MPML and the originating author
        > are cited as the source of the information.Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • rstoss@catanga.org
        Jure and list,   ...   May I propose to carefully check all image sets for a possible faint second object moving at the same rate and close to the biggie?
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 16 6:30 AM
          Jure and list,
           
          > Although on discovery images we didn't see any coma, my only reasonable
          > explanation of this is a comet in outburst.  According to some high accuracy
           
          May I propose to carefully check all image sets for a possible faint
          second object moving at the same rate and close to the biggie?
          There must be a reason for the outburst, if it is a outburst (but what
          else it should be at this magnitude...).
           
          Oh, and congrats from V to CV! :-)
           
          Reiner
           
        • rstoss@catanga.org
          I forgot...   ...   And good luck that there ain t some old identifiable ONS. The dark force is strong... ;-)   Anyone tried this one visually? Could be a
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 16 6:37 AM
            I forgot...
             
            > Oh, and congrats from V to CV! :-)
             
            And good luck that there ain't some old identifiable ONS.
            The dark force is strong... ;-)
             
            Anyone tried this one visually? Could be a lot brighter
            than those small aperture CCD magnitude estimates.
             
            R.
             
          • giovannisostero
            Hello Reiner and all. ... If it s indeed an outburst (as I suspect, too) it might have an internal (to the comet) origin, like what happens to other
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 16 7:04 AM
              Hello Reiner and all.

              > May I propose to carefully check all image sets for a possible faint
              > second object moving at the same rate and close to the biggie?
              > There must be a reason for the outburst, if it is a outburst

              If it's indeed an outburst (as I suspect, too) it might have an internal (to the comet) origin, like what happens to other outbursting comets (17P/Holmes included).

              > Anyone tried this one visually? Could be a lot brighter
              > than those small aperture CCD magnitude estimates.

              Only if it has a well developed coma. ;-)

              Cheers,
              Giovanni Sostero (MPC#473)
            • RICHARD MILES
              Telescope: 2.0-m Faulkes Telescope South (f/10.0 Ritchey-Chretien + CCD) Observing window: 2010 Apr 16 12:02-12:27 UT Total of 13 images made in 1.5 arcsec
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 16 7:40 AM
                Telescope: 2.0-m Faulkes Telescope South (f/10.0 Ritchey-Chretien + CCD)
                Observing window: 2010 Apr 16 12:02-12:27 UT
                Total of 13 images made in 1.5 arcsec FWHM seeing using B,V,R,g',r',i' and Z
                filters

                The PSF of object is slightly non-stellar in that, for example, the
                brightest pixel of star of similar magnitude (R=12.7) = 15480 adu (fwhm =
                1.5") whilst the brightest pixel of object (R=12.7) = 9641 adu (fwhm =
                1.6").

                Precise Sloan filter photometry relative to SDSSJ133859.27+044740.0
                (r'=14.647, g'-r'=0.408) using 4.2 arcsec radius photometric apertures
                yields the following:

                NEOCP Object: 04F0011
                2010 Apr 16 (UT)
                12:14:20 r'=12.973
                12:16:20 g'=13.469
                12:19:30 i'=12.853
                12:26:27 r'=12.959

                Hence g'-r'=0.503 and r'-i'=0.113 and the r' magnitude may have brightened
                by 0.014 mag in 12.1 min. The absolute uncertainty i n the photometry is
                expected to be 0.015 mag, the relative uncertainty is expected to be less
                than 0.005 mag (SNR of comparison star >500).

                Photometry using 4.2 arcsec apertures of three other R-filter images
                indicate brightening of the object amounting to 0.012 mag in 18.6 min.

                Astrometry has been reported to the Minor Planet Center.

                No extended coma is visible in any image.

                No obvious co-moving object is evident in the frames.

                Conclude that this moving object is slightly non-stellar and at the epoch of
                the observations was brightening at a rate of 0.05 mag/hr.

                Richard Miles
                British Astronomical Association
              • walcom77
                Dear Jure ... Here you can see our follow-up image of this object (more details are on the image): http://bit.ly/aNRhZJ Ciao, Ernesto Guido & Giovanni Sostero
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 16 8:20 AM
                  Dear Jure

                  > Some of you might have noticed an unusually bright object 04F0011 on NEOCP.
                  > Although on discovery images we didn't see any coma, my only reasonable
                  > explanation of this is a comet in outburst.

                  Here you can see our follow-up image of this object (more details are
                  on the image):

                  http://bit.ly/aNRhZJ

                  Ciao,

                  Ernesto Guido & Giovanni Sostero
                  http://remanzacco.blogspot.com
                  http://twitter.com/comets77
                • RICHARD MILES
                  Further to my earlier report, I can now report observations of object 04F0011 in three color indices measured on 2010 Apr 16.51 as follows: g -r =0.503
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 16 9:26 AM
                    Further to my earlier report, I can now report observations of object
                    04F0011 in three color indices measured on 2010 Apr 16.51 as follows:

                    g'-r'=0.503
                    r'-i'=0.113
                    i'-z=0.116

                    For the z-band measure, a PanSTARRS-z filter was employed.
                    This low-resolution spectral trend resembles that of a cometary dust coma.
                    Note that B-V and V-R color indices are not available as their determination
                    requires photometric calibration of the field stars in the future.

                    With a view to looking for possible changes in the PSF of the object as a
                    function of color, for example which may be indicative of a larger/bluer
                    ionisation envelope, the FWHM of the object and a nearby star [viz. (SDSS
                    J133855.56+044444.9) of similar color (g'-r'=0.56) and magnitude (r'=13.11)
                    to 04F0011] were analysed using the software AIP for Windows with the
                    following results:

                    Filter, Object FWHM(pixels), Star FWHM(pixels), Ratio of FWHM (Object/Star)

                    B, 12.4, 10.2, 1.22
                    g', 10.7, 8.4, 1.27
                    V, 10.8, 8.5, 1.27
                    r', 11.1, 8.6, 1.29
                    i', 9.9, 7.5, 1.32
                    z, 11.05, 8.7, 1.27

                    where 1 pixel =0.2785 arcsec

                    Clearly the object is slightly non-stellar in appearance. No significant
                    difference is evident in the relative dimensions of the object in going from
                    the B filter to the z filter, which is a further indication that the object
                    is essentially dust-like in nature.

                    Richard Miles
                    British Astronomical Association
                  • Dave Tholen
                    ... That s well within the range of possible rotational variation. Be careful interpreting peak pixel values. If two stellar sources of identical brightness
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 16 12:18 PM
                      > Conclude that this moving object is slightly non-stellar and at the epoch of
                      > the observations was brightening at a rate of 0.05 mag/hr.

                      That's well within the range of possible rotational variation.

                      Be careful interpreting peak pixel values. If two stellar sources of
                      identical brightness and PSF fall centered on a pixel in one case and
                      on the corner of a pixel in the other case, the peak pixel values will
                      be different. Better to fit a PSF profile to each and compare widths.
                    • Dave Tholen
                      ... More importantly, can you rule out that the colors resemble an asteroid? That is, are the colors of a cometary dust coma unique?
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 16 12:27 PM
                        > This low-resolution spectral trend resembles that of a cometary dust coma.

                        More importantly, can you rule out that the colors resemble an asteroid?
                        That is, are the colors of a cometary dust coma unique?
                      • RICHARD MILES
                        Dave, This object appears to be non-asteroidal in nature. The image is definitely well-oversampled in the 2.0-m FTS images given the 0.28 arcsec pixel size
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 16 1:22 PM
                          Dave,

                          This object appears to be non-asteroidal in nature. The image is definitely
                          well-oversampled in the 2.0-m FTS images given the 0.28 arcsec pixel size
                          and so the max. pixel value is not subject to any significant error from
                          sampling bias. I had also plotted the PSF's of 3 stars and the object and
                          found the latter to be significantly different.

                          Re. the cometary dust-like characteristics, of course some asteroids have
                          similar reflectance spectra to cometary dust so we shall have to await the
                          evolution of this object to see to what extent it changes in appearance
                          before we can be more certain of its cometary nature.

                          It is rather enigmatic at present since if it is a small comet in outburst,
                          the dust coma seems not to have expanded much in size as yet. The object is
                          really not varying in brightness by very much either - we now have data
                          spanning more than 0.8 days and the variations are small - a few tenths of a
                          magnitude. Given the small rate of change in brightness, if it is an
                          outburst then it surely must be approaching or have just passed maximum
                          reflected light and so is likely to be at least 1 or 2 days old: hence the
                          problem of the very small coma. From its rate of motion it may be some 3-5
                          AU distant and so even at an expansion velocity of 0.1 km/s one would expect
                          a dust coma of at least some 3-6 arcsec in size by now. So it does not seem
                          to fit the pattern of a typical cometary outburst. We may however be seeing
                          an intrinsically small body disintegrating very slowly, which would be a new
                          phenomenon. Once we have some orbit information it will be easier to narrow
                          down the options.

                          Richard Miles


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Dave Tholen" <tholen@...>
                          To: <comets-ml@yahoogroups.com>; <mpml@yahoogroups.com>;
                          <rmiles.btee@...>
                          Cc: <alison.tripp@...>; <comet@...>;
                          <paul.roche@...>; <tspahr@...>
                          Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:18 PM
                          Subject: Re: {MPML} Observational report on NEOCP 04F0011: possible cometary
                          outburst


                          >> Conclude that this moving object is slightly non-stellar and at the epoch
                          >> of
                          >> the observations was brightening at a rate of 0.05 mag/hr.
                          >
                          > That's well within the range of possible rotational variation.
                          >
                          > Be careful interpreting peak pixel values. If two stellar sources of
                          > identical brightness and PSF fall centered on a pixel in one case and
                          > on the corner of a pixel in the other case, the peak pixel values will
                          > be different. Better to fit a PSF profile to each and compare widths.
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          >
                          > Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with
                          > the stipulation that MPML and the originating author are cited as the
                          > source of the information.Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • P. Clay Sherrod
                          With all of these confirming observations and with the incredible uncertainty of this object, why has it not been placed on the MPC NEO objects? Asteroidal or
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 16 1:38 PM
                            With all of these confirming observations and with the incredible uncertainty of this
                            object, why has it not been placed on the MPC NEO objects? Asteroidal or cometary, it is
                            simple enough to change the designation as has happened so many times before.

                            And MPEC needs to be issued on this target.

                            Clay
                            _____
                            Dr. P. Clay Sherrod
                            Arkansas Sky Observatories
                            MPC H45 - Petit Jean Mountain South
                            MPC H41 - Petit Jean Mountain
                            MPC H43 - Conway West
                            http://www.arksky.org/

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "RICHARD MILES" <rmiles.btee@...>
                            To: <comets-ml@yahoogroups.com>; <mpml@yahoogroups.com>; "Dave Tholen"
                            <tholen@...>
                            Cc: <comet@...>; <tspahr@...>
                            Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:22 PM
                            Subject: {MPML} Nature of NEOCP object 04F0011


                            > Dave,
                            >
                            > This object appears to be non-asteroidal in nature. The image is definitely
                            > well-oversampled in the 2.0-m FTS images given the 0.28 arcsec pixel size
                            > and so the max. pixel value is not subject to any significant error from
                            > sampling bias. I had also plotted the PSF's of 3 stars and the object and
                            > found the latter to be significantly different.
                            >
                            > Re. the cometary dust-like characteristics, of course some asteroids have
                            > similar reflectance spectra to cometary dust so we shall have to await the
                            > evolution of this object to see to what extent it changes in appearance
                            > before we can be more certain of its cometary nature.
                            >
                            > It is rather enigmatic at present since if it is a small comet in outburst,
                            > the dust coma seems not to have expanded much in size as yet. The object is
                            > really not varying in brightness by very much either - we now have data
                            > spanning more than 0.8 days and the variations are small - a few tenths of a
                            > magnitude. Given the small rate of change in brightness, if it is an
                            > outburst then it surely must be approaching or have just passed maximum
                            > reflected light and so is likely to be at least 1 or 2 days old: hence the
                            > problem of the very small coma. From its rate of motion it may be some 3-5
                            > AU distant and so even at an expansion velocity of 0.1 km/s one would expect
                            > a dust coma of at least some 3-6 arcsec in size by now. So it does not seem
                            > to fit the pattern of a typical cometary outburst. We may however be seeing
                            > an intrinsically small body disintegrating very slowly, which would be a new
                            > phenomenon. Once we have some orbit information it will be easier to narrow
                            > down the options.
                            >
                            > Richard Miles
                            >
                            >
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: "Dave Tholen" <tholen@...>
                            > To: <comets-ml@yahoogroups.com>; <mpml@yahoogroups.com>;
                            > <rmiles.btee@...>
                            > Cc: <alison.tripp@...>; <comet@...>;
                            > <paul.roche@...>; <tspahr@...>
                            > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:18 PM
                            > Subject: Re: {MPML} Observational report on NEOCP 04F0011: possible cometary
                            > outburst
                            >
                            >
                            >>> Conclude that this moving object is slightly non-stellar and at the epoch
                            >>> of
                            >>> the observations was brightening at a rate of 0.05 mag/hr.
                            >>
                            >> That's well within the range of possible rotational variation.
                            >>
                            >> Be careful interpreting peak pixel values. If two stellar sources of
                            >> identical brightness and PSF fall centered on a pixel in one case and
                            >> on the corner of a pixel in the other case, the peak pixel values will
                            >> be different. Better to fit a PSF profile to each and compare widths.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> ------------------------------------
                            >>
                            >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            >>
                            >> Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with
                            >> the stipulation that MPML and the originating author are cited as the
                            >> source of the information.Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            >
                            > Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with the stipulation
                            > that MPML and the originating author are cited as the source of the information.Yahoo!
                            > Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • P. Clay Sherrod
                            Make that: An MPEC needs to be issued on this target...... Clay _____ Dr. P. Clay Sherrod Arkansas Sky Observatories MPC H45 - Petit Jean Mountain South MPC
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 16 1:39 PM
                              Make that:
                              "An MPEC needs to be issued on this target......"

                              Clay
                              _____
                              Dr. P. Clay Sherrod
                              Arkansas Sky Observatories
                              MPC H45 - Petit Jean Mountain South
                              MPC H41 - Petit Jean Mountain
                              MPC H43 - Conway West
                              http://www.arksky.org/

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "P. Clay Sherrod" <drclay@...>
                              To: <comets-ml@yahoogroups.com>; <mpml@yahoogroups.com>; "Dave Tholen"
                              <tholen@...>; "RICHARD MILES" <rmiles.btee@...>
                              Cc: <comet@...>; <tspahr@...>
                              Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:38 PM
                              Subject: Re: {MPML} Nature of NEOCP object 04F0011


                              > With all of these confirming observations and with the incredible uncertainty of this
                              > object, why has it not been placed on the MPC NEO objects? Asteroidal or cometary, it
                              > is
                              > simple enough to change the designation as has happened so many times before.
                              >
                              > And MPEC needs to be issued on this target.
                              >
                              > Clay
                              > _____
                              > Dr. P. Clay Sherrod
                              > Arkansas Sky Observatories
                              > MPC H45 - Petit Jean Mountain South
                              > MPC H41 - Petit Jean Mountain
                              > MPC H43 - Conway West
                              > http://www.arksky.org/
                              >
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: "RICHARD MILES" <rmiles.btee@...>
                              > To: <comets-ml@yahoogroups.com>; <mpml@yahoogroups.com>; "Dave Tholen"
                              > <tholen@...>
                              > Cc: <comet@...>; <tspahr@...>
                              > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:22 PM
                              > Subject: {MPML} Nature of NEOCP object 04F0011
                              >
                              >
                              >> Dave,
                              >>
                              >> This object appears to be non-asteroidal in nature. The image is definitely
                              >> well-oversampled in the 2.0-m FTS images given the 0.28 arcsec pixel size
                              >> and so the max. pixel value is not subject to any significant error from
                              >> sampling bias. I had also plotted the PSF's of 3 stars and the object and
                              >> found the latter to be significantly different.
                              >>
                              >> Re. the cometary dust-like characteristics, of course some asteroids have
                              >> similar reflectance spectra to cometary dust so we shall have to await the
                              >> evolution of this object to see to what extent it changes in appearance
                              >> before we can be more certain of its cometary nature.
                              >>
                              >> It is rather enigmatic at present since if it is a small comet in outburst,
                              >> the dust coma seems not to have expanded much in size as yet. The object is
                              >> really not varying in brightness by very much either - we now have data
                              >> spanning more than 0.8 days and the variations are small - a few tenths of a
                              >> magnitude. Given the small rate of change in brightness, if it is an
                              >> outburst then it surely must be approaching or have just passed maximum
                              >> reflected light and so is likely to be at least 1 or 2 days old: hence the
                              >> problem of the very small coma. From its rate of motion it may be some 3-5
                              >> AU distant and so even at an expansion velocity of 0.1 km/s one would expect
                              >> a dust coma of at least some 3-6 arcsec in size by now. So it does not seem
                              >> to fit the pattern of a typical cometary outburst. We may however be seeing
                              >> an intrinsically small body disintegrating very slowly, which would be a new
                              >> phenomenon. Once we have some orbit information it will be easier to narrow
                              >> down the options.
                              >>
                              >> Richard Miles
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> ----- Original Message -----
                              >> From: "Dave Tholen" <tholen@...>
                              >> To: <comets-ml@yahoogroups.com>; <mpml@yahoogroups.com>;
                              >> <rmiles.btee@...>
                              >> Cc: <alison.tripp@...>; <comet@...>;
                              >> <paul.roche@...>; <tspahr@...>
                              >> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:18 PM
                              >> Subject: Re: {MPML} Observational report on NEOCP 04F0011: possible cometary
                              >> outburst
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>>> Conclude that this moving object is slightly non-stellar and at the epoch
                              >>>> of
                              >>>> the observations was brightening at a rate of 0.05 mag/hr.
                              >>>
                              >>> That's well within the range of possible rotational variation.
                              >>>
                              >>> Be careful interpreting peak pixel values. If two stellar sources of
                              >>> identical brightness and PSF fall centered on a pixel in one case and
                              >>> on the corner of a pixel in the other case, the peak pixel values will
                              >>> be different. Better to fit a PSF profile to each and compare widths.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>> ------------------------------------
                              >>>
                              >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              >>>
                              >>> Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with
                              >>> the stipulation that MPML and the originating author are cited as the
                              >>> source of the information.Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> ------------------------------------
                              >>
                              >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              >>
                              >> Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with the stipulation
                              >> that MPML and the originating author are cited as the source of the information.Yahoo!
                              >> Groups Links
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                              >
                              > Posts to this list or information found within may be freely used, with the stipulation
                              > that MPML and the originating author are cited as the source of the information.Yahoo!
                              > Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Bill J Gray
                              Hi Clay, ... I m curious: why do you think so? MPC should hold off, in my humble opinion (and I suspect theirs, though I don t really know), until there s
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 16 2:26 PM
                                Hi Clay,

                                > Make that:
                                > "An MPEC needs to be issued on this target......"

                                I'm curious: why do you think so?

                                MPC should hold off, in my humble opinion (and I suspect
                                theirs, though I don't really know), until there's a more
                                solid orbit for the object. At present, you can fit all
                                sorts of possibilities, from nearly circular to parabolic
                                (though the latter extreme looks unlikely right now). All an
                                MPEC would give us would be an orbit. And there are plenty of
                                sources for that (including MPC itself; NEOCP supplies an
                                orbit for this object that is a reasonable guess... that
                                being all one can do at this point.)

                                The orbit isn't nailed down, but distance to the target
                                is, in part thanks to all the coverage from widely spaced
                                stations. So it's clear the object is roughly two AU away
                                from us, and about three from the sun. We just dunno yet
                                whether it's headed toward us, away from us, or how fast
                                it's doing one of those things.

                                So... we've got what we need now: a way to report the
                                object, a way to get the data on it, and (via MPML) a way
                                to discuss what we're seeing. It'll obviously need a permanent
                                designation at some point, but I don't see any rush about it.

                                (Admittedly, one could argue that there's no good reason
                                _not_ to MPEC it -- it obviously is a for-real object -- except
                                for the desire to avoid pesky multiple designations.)

                                Incidentally, this object is getting clobbered with
                                astrometry, with data from 22 observing stations thus far.
                                It'll probably be an MPEC of record length. The object is
                                in absolutely no danger of getting lost any time soon. If
                                people just want to do plain ol' astrometry, doing it for
                                almost any other object would probably be more useful.
                                (Photometry being another matter, of course.)

                                -- Bill
                              • rstoss@catanga.org
                                I see on the NEOCP observations tally for this object that some stations have added a K flag to their observations. Are you guys sure about that? :-)  
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 16 2:34 PM
                                  I see on the NEOCP observations tally for this object that some
                                  stations have added a "K" flag to their observations.
                                  Are you guys sure about that? :-)
                                   
                                  Track and stack for a whopping mag12 object? Isn't it already
                                  nearly saturated on few second exposures? ;-)
                                   
                                  Just curious.
                                   
                                  R.
                                   
                                • whrevr
                                  In our initial MPC subissions for 04F0011 from H01, I reported this object as cometary. Although I read Jure s initial MPML message before going to sleep, I
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 16 7:56 PM
                                    In our initial MPC subissions for 04F0011 from H01, I reported this
                                    object as cometary. Although I read Jure's initial MPML message
                                    before going to sleep, I didn't comment under the concept of 'not
                                    influencing other observers'. However, since it is raining tonight
                                    and I had a chance to read through the mailing list, I see
                                    that this is now a moot point!

                                    Similar to Richard Miles' report, I observed the ratio object's FWHM
                                    in R-band (as defined by IRAF's imexamine) to bright field stars to
                                    be between 1.3-1.5 in seeing conditions that ranged from 0.8-1.0".
                                    The higher ratio was consistently associated with the better seeing,
                                    which may or may not be physically significant or just an artifact of
                                    the images beginning to approach an undersampled state (pixel scale
                                    was binned to 0.53"/pix). Despite doing these tests tracking on the
                                    target, exposures were short enough that the field star FWHM
                                    was based on a (visually) near perfect Moffat fit but the target
                                    clearly deviated from this.

                                    Conditions were extremely non-photometric so no color data was
                                    obtained. I considered the possibility that Ross mentioned of a faint
                                    coma extending beyond the FOV but the non-photometric conditions made
                                    detecting any enhanced background problematic.

                                    Gist is - the cometary nature of this object reported by H01 to the
                                    MPC/CBAT was based purely on this data - the consistently greater
                                    FWHM and the enhanced wings of the profile. Therefore, this does not
                                    rule out any other physical explanation that could produce similar results.

                                    - Bill
                                  • whrevr
                                    . . . ... . . . Sorry Reiner - I was reading your message out of the corner of my eye while typing mine and a different Ross came to mind! - bill
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 16 8:06 PM
                                      . . .
                                      > obtained. I considered the possibility that Ross mentioned of a faint
                                      ^^^^^Reiner
                                      > coma extending beyond the FOV but the non-photometric conditions made
                                      . . .

                                      Sorry Reiner - I was reading your message out of the corner of my eye while typing mine and a different 'Ross' came to mind! - bill
                                    • rstoss@catanga.org
                                      ...   If the comet reports they have received so far are not conclusive enough, what is their choice? To announce a H=8.7 asteroid discovery in the Inner
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 17 4:25 AM
                                        > Make that:
                                        > "An MPEC needs to be issued on this target......"
                                         
                                        If the comet reports they have received so far are not
                                        conclusive enough, what is their choice? To announce a
                                        H=8.7 asteroid discovery in the Inner Solar System, in the
                                        year 2010? ;-)
                                         
                                        If we do not consider the objects in the Outer Solar System
                                        (semimajor axis past Jupiter), then we have only 301 objects
                                        that have H=8.7 or brighter. Of those, the one with the highest
                                        number is (4709) Ennomos, discovered in 1988 by C. S. Shoemaker.
                                         
                                        That's however a Jupiter Trojan. If we remove the Trojans too
                                        from the list, we end up with only 285 objects and the highest
                                        number is (1467) Mashona, discovered by C. Jackson in 1938!
                                         
                                        Let's wait therefore until the coma will expand and become
                                        visible, before announcing the "biggest" asteroid discovery
                                        in the Inner Solar System since 72 years :-)
                                         
                                        Especially since it would become invisible again very soon
                                        and therefore become "lost" (kind of paradox for a H=8 asteroid
                                        in 2 AU distance, isn't it?).
                                         
                                        BWT, no matter what it turns out to be, another great discovery
                                        by "amateurs". Yes, it seems to have been found at the right time,
                                        just after outburst. But considering that the professional surveys go
                                        to mag20 and are therefore blind to such bright objects (pixel
                                        saturation...), it is not even sure they would have picked it up at all.
                                        And if they did, then maybe only weeks later when the object would have
                                        faded again and the most interesting period would have remained
                                        unobserved.
                                         
                                        Re. the discovery rules. If there would be a two weeks old ONS
                                        (e.g. mag22) in the MPC ONS database and they would link it now to this
                                        mag12 discovery, the survey which reported the routine and presumably
                                        uninteresting mag22 ONS a couple of weeks ago would now get the discovery
                                        credit. Fair?
                                         
                                        R.
                                         
                                      • Jure Skvarc
                                        Many thanks to everybody who promptly jumped in and helped to characterise early stages of the outburst of this object. I hope you had a lot of fun and
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 17 1:32 PM
                                          Many thanks to everybody who promptly jumped in and helped to characterise
                                          early stages of the outburst of this object. I hope you had a lot of fun
                                          and excitement with observations. Since there is no discovery asterisk in
                                          our what we thought were discovery observations it seems that this object is
                                          well-known. I am a bit surprised that they don't tell us which it is, but
                                          from the philosophical point of view this probably really isn't big deal.

                                          cheers, Jure Skvarč


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • rstoss@catanga.org
                                          Jure,   ...   There are never any discovery asterisks included with comet discoveries! The discovery is still yours. See CBET 2249:
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 17 1:39 PM
                                            Jure,
                                             
                                            > Many thanks to everybody who promptly jumped in and helped to characterise
                                            > early stages of the outburst of this object.  I hope you had a lot of fun
                                            > and excitement with observations.  Since there is no discovery asterisk in
                                            > our what we thought were discovery observations it seems that this object is
                                            > well-known.  I am a bit surprised that they don't tell us which it is, but
                                            > from the philosophical point of view this probably really isn't big deal.
                                             
                                            There are never any discovery asterisks included with comet
                                            discoveries! The discovery is still yours. See CBET 2249:
                                            http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbet/002200/CBET002249.txt
                                             
                                            R.
                                             
                                          • Dave Tholen
                                            ... Standard procedure for comets. Look at, for example, comet Garradd announced on MPEC 2010-G10. No discovery asterisk. And it wouldn t be the first time
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 17 1:42 PM
                                              > Since there is no discovery asterisk in our what we thought were
                                              > discovery observations it seems that this object is well-known.

                                              Standard procedure for comets. Look at, for example, comet Garradd
                                              announced on MPEC 2010-G10. No discovery asterisk.

                                              And it wouldn't be the first time that a comet discovery was
                                              announced with a designation only, though my impression is that
                                              that happens only when there is some question regarding the
                                              discovery. As far as I can tell, this one is pretty clear cut.
                                            • rstoss@catanga.org
                                              ...   Also notice that in the MPEC it says Observations: . If the object would be identified to a known and already somewhere published one it would say
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 17 1:43 PM
                                                > There are never any discovery asterisks included with comet
                                                > discoveries! The discovery is still yours. See CBET 2249:
                                                > http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbet/002200/CBET002249.txt
                                                 
                                                Also notice that in the MPEC it says "Observations:".
                                                If the object would be identified to a known and already somewhere
                                                published one it would say "Additional observations:".
                                                 
                                                R.
                                                 
                                              • giovannisostero
                                                Dear Jure, indipendently from the discovery credits (the MPC will tell us whole the story, I think) congratulations for having picked-up this interesting
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 17 1:47 PM
                                                  Dear Jure,
                                                  indipendently from the discovery credits (the MPC will tell us whole the story, I think) congratulations for having picked-up this interesting object.
                                                  Cheers,
                                                  Giovanni Sostero

                                                  > Many thanks to everybody who promptly jumped in and helped to characterise
                                                  > early stages of the outburst of this object. I hope you had a lot of fun
                                                  > and excitement with observations. Since there is no discovery asterisk in
                                                  > our what we thought were discovery observations it seems that this object is
                                                  > well-known. I am a bit surprised that they don't tell us which it is, but
                                                  > from the philosophical point of view this probably really isn't big deal.
                                                  >
                                                  > cheers, Jure Skvarc
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                • Jure Skvarc
                                                  Hi Reiner, Dave Thank you for your reassuring explanations. Yes, the other reason I was in doubt is that there was no name. So we ll see how this ends.
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 17 1:48 PM
                                                    Hi Reiner, Dave

                                                    Thank you for your reassuring explanations. Yes, the other reason I was in
                                                    doubt is that there was no name. So we'll see how this ends.

                                                    Usually I am not negative but all this FUD with the new rules (which are bad
                                                    IMO, but Reiner and Alain told more or less everything on the subject) took
                                                    some toll on me as well.

                                                    cheers, Jure


                                                    On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Dave Tholen <tholen@...> wrote:

                                                    > > Since there is no discovery asterisk in our what we thought were
                                                    > > discovery observations it seems that this object is well-known.
                                                    >
                                                    > Standard procedure for comets. Look at, for example, comet Garradd
                                                    > announced on MPEC 2010-G10. No discovery asterisk.
                                                    >
                                                    > And it wouldn't be the first time that a comet discovery was
                                                    > announced with a designation only, though my impression is that
                                                    > that happens only when there is some question regarding the
                                                    > discovery. As far as I can tell, this one is pretty clear cut.
                                                    >


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Brian Skiff
                                                    Although the astrometric details are on the MPEC, the discovery story is on CBET 2249, presumably soon to get issued on an IAU Circular. Brian
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 17 1:49 PM
                                                      Although the astrometric details are on the MPEC, the discovery
                                                      "story" is on CBET 2249, presumably soon to get issued on an
                                                      IAU Circular.


                                                      \Brian
                                                    • Jure Skvarc
                                                      Thanks Giovanni, I think your early images were the first with the hint of the cometary nature. cheers, Jure On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, giovannisostero
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Apr 17 1:51 PM
                                                        Thanks Giovanni, I think your early images were the first with the hint of
                                                        the cometary nature.

                                                        cheers, Jure


                                                        On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, giovannisostero
                                                        <GiovanniSostero@...>wrote:

                                                        > Dear Jure,
                                                        > indipendently from the discovery credits (the MPC will tell us whole the
                                                        > story, I think) congratulations for having picked-up this interesting
                                                        > object.
                                                        > Cheers,
                                                        > Giovanni Sostero
                                                        >
                                                        > > Many thanks to everybody who promptly jumped in and helped to
                                                        > characterise
                                                        > > early stages of the outburst of this object. I hope you had a lot of fun
                                                        > > and excitement with observations. Since there is no discovery asterisk
                                                        > in
                                                        > > our what we thought were discovery observations it seems that this object
                                                        > is
                                                        > > well-known. I am a bit surprised that they don't tell us which it is,
                                                        > but
                                                        > > from the philosophical point of view this probably really isn't big deal.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > cheers, Jure Skvarc
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        >


                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • rstoss@catanga.org
                                                        ...   ... when there is some question regarding the name. Recent example: The first J75 comet discovery. 1-2 month(s) discussion in CSBN about such
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Apr 17 2:02 PM
                                                          > And it wouldn't be the first time that a comet discovery was
                                                          > announced with a designation only, though my impression is that
                                                          > that happens only when there is some question regarding the
                                                          > discovery.  As far as I can tell, this one is pretty clear cut.
                                                           
                                                          ... when there is some question regarding the name. Recent example:
                                                          The first J75 comet discovery. 1-2 month(s) discussion in CSBN
                                                          about such linguistical bloopers like "LaSagra", "Lasagra" etc.
                                                          Fortunately in the end it rained brain from the sky and the correct
                                                          name was choosen, which is "La Sagra" of course.
                                                           
                                                          In this case it should be easier. Probably "Vales" (the person at 106
                                                          which did report it, according to the CBET) or the name of the observer
                                                          who found it, if it was a different one than the "reporter".
                                                           
                                                          If more than one person was involved however it will get named after
                                                          the observatory or observing program. The name of the observatory is
                                                          Črni Vrh. Ohoh, a name with a blank. Good luck with the CSBN in that case :-))
                                                           
                                                          You'll probably get such amazing CSBN expert opinions like "Črni is enough"
                                                          as there are other names with Vrh in them too. Vrh means peak. Črni means
                                                          just black of course. Nice name for a comet, isn't it :-)
                                                           
                                                          Sad, but it can happen easily, as they decide and vote about the name
                                                          without even consulting the discoverer.
                                                           
                                                          R.
                                                           
                                                        • RICHARD MILES
                                                          Sure did, Jure - thanks to the Črni Vrh team for finding it. No doubt we shall have more fun with it in the future as it may prove to be a challenging and
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Apr 17 2:06 PM
                                                            Sure did, Jure - thanks to the Črni Vrh team for finding it.

                                                            No doubt we shall have more fun with it in the future as it may prove to be
                                                            a challenging and rather enigmatic object, evolving like no other
                                                            previously-known comet, I suspect.

                                                            Cheers,
                                                            Richard Miles


                                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                                            From: "Jure Skvarc" <jskvarc@...>
                                                            To: <mpml@yahoogroups.com>
                                                            Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 8:32 PM
                                                            Subject: Re: {MPML} 04F0011


                                                            Many thanks to everybody who promptly jumped in and helped to characterise
                                                            early stages of the outburst of this object. I hope you had a lot of fun
                                                            and excitement with observations. Since there is no discovery asterisk in
                                                            our what we thought were discovery observations it seems that this object is
                                                            well-known. I am a bit surprised that they don't tell us which it is, but
                                                            from the philosophical point of view this probably really isn't big deal.

                                                            cheers, Jure Skvarč
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.