Halley's Comet Imaged As Transneptunian Object 139
An anonymous reader writes "The European Space Observatory has imaged Halley's Comet at the farthest point (past Neptune) in which such a 10-kilometer diameter iceball has ever been observed. To image a comet as a raven-black object, without its bright dust tail (coma), is equivalent to seeing a lump of coal at the distance between the Earth's poles and to do so in the evening twilight. The last gasp seen from Halley's Comet was 1991, when a gigantic explosion happened, providing it with an expanding, extensive cloud of dust for several months. It is not known whether this event was caused by a collision with an unknown piece of rock or by internal processes (a last 'sigh' on the way out). Halley has an orbital period just over 76 years and will return in 2062."
Makes me think of 2061... (Score:2, Insightful)
What we need is another space race, some incentive to get there. My guess is that the next space race will be for resources, metals, chemicals, etc.
Re:Makes me think of 2061... (Score:1)
Re:Makes me think of 2061... (Score:1)
Re:Makes me think of 2061... (Score:1)
Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:5, Interesting)
If they were able to image it, it seems they knew where it was, by mapping where it was going. If it had collided with something, it's trajectory would have changed.
So does this give us new insight as to how comets die? And if they die, how are they still comets? How does the solar system replenish its comet supply?
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:1)
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:2)
The Oort cloud has trillions potential comets, and their orbits are occasionally disturbed enough to send a few sunward.
Comets die when they don't have enough volatile material to throw out a cloud when they approach the sun.
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:1)
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:3, Informative)
Should we be worried about the solar system replenishing its comets? I don't think running out of comets should concern us Earth dwellers that much. In fact, it would be best to have as few of them as possible unl
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:2)
For all that extra brainpower we still can't seem to overcome stupidity.
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:1)
Forgot to d/l the latest Windows XP patch. Got blaster worm. Rebooted every 60 seconds and suffered from periodic DoS attacks as a result of RPC vulnerability.
At least, that's probably what they mean by 'internal processes'.
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:1)
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't have been a collision, methinks (Score:1)
In case of slashdotting... (Score:5, Funny)
. . . . .
. , . . . . (the 2nd one)
. . . . . .
Re:In case of slashdotting... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In case of slashdotting... (Score:2)
Here's an even better image... (Score:1)
What's the fun... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the fun... (Score:1)
Re:What's the fun... (Score:1)
Re:What's the fun... (Score:3, Insightful)
The same applies to the comet's tail: there's a chance to learn something by making observations without the comet tail hiding things.
Re:What's the fun... (Score:2, Interesting)
We had "ape curiosity", or as some scientists call it, "wow-that-ground-sure-looks-better-than-these-tre
I'll take it up with Mark Twain... (Score:3, Funny)
Cool Fact (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cool Fact (Score:4, Informative)
So shove your Cool Fact urban legend. Not even the Middle Ages records support your ignorant claim.
Re:Cool Fact (Score:2)
And you capitalize "BAD OMEN" as if to negate something I said? Did I say it was a good omen?
I'm sorry that I was slightly off in my post (I freely acknowledge this), but come on, no reason to get bent out of shape.
Re:Cool Fact (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cool Fact (Score:1)
Re:Cool Fact (Score:1)
Astonishing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Astonishing (Score:2)
Re:Astonishing (Score:2)
How about getting a life that is remotely possible, like writing cheap knock-offs of Windoze viruses.
Re:Astonishing (Score:2)
Re:Astonishing (Score:2)
Hello, toxic666. I thought I'd just point out the irony in demonstrating more than passing knowledge of Star Trek while you insult a post that referenced Star Trek...
Re:Astonishing (Score:2)
Re:Astonishing (Score:1)
Here...let me clear this up a bit: this Star Trek thang'. See, in it's original form, Star Trek isn't about technology, it'a about people - people who are adventurers (rabid adventurers) who just happen to use technology to help them get where they are going. So, we see guys like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. hammering about God's Creation looking for Alien Love, Perfect Logic and down-home Georgia cookin' - in that order. Nevertheless, they are on a quest, and whether you agree with them, or not
The real reason for the telescope (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real reason for the telescope (Score:1, Funny)
Re:The real reason for the telescope (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The real reason for the telescope (Score:1)
Slightly over-hyped (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a remarkable achievement, and shows what can be done with Earth-based telescopes, but it seems to be more proof of concept than practical.
Re:Slightly over-hyped (Score:5, Informative)
But you shouldn't see this as just a comet finding exercise (though it does prove the capabilities of the VLT rather well).
By analysing the image further it will be possible to determine whether there is any activity at this distance, or a residual dust cloud. Depending on what filters they used for the observation, they might be able to compare the "colour" of the nucleus with that observed by the spacecraft back in 1986 and look for changes. This might indicate a change in surface conditions at large distances form the sun.
Re:Slightly over-hyped (Score:2)
Re:Slightly over-hyped (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it's 5% imagination, 5% data, and 90% computation.
Re:Slightly over-hyped (Score:2)
just to clarify (Score:5, Informative)
Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:1)
Re:Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:2)
17000 kittens killed this year and counting
Don't [catsinternational.org]
worry!
Re:Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:2)
Re:Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:1)
Re:Explosion didn't involve Halley? (Score:2)
Incorrect link or error in the article (Score:4, Informative)
Media Implications (Score:2, Funny)
No wait, it requires a long exposure to the signal. No improvement for all of the "All the news in the blink of a hyperactive ferret on vivarin's eye" culture.
Re:Is it only me... (Score:2)
This article is about how "cool" it is that they managed to get a picture of it, not that they could find it.
OK... (Score:2, Funny)
I knew it!! a dancing mouse (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I knew it!! a dancing mouse (Score:1)
Knock before entering. (Score:1, Funny)
I plan on being out of town that year.
Wrong (Score:1)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Children of Haley.... (Score:1)
I wonder how many children of Haley are around....
I saw it last time (Score:2)
a) Have a decent-sized telescope
b) Not live in London where you can't see a damn thing in the night sky
Re:I saw it last time (Score:1, Interesting)
I wish I could accurat
Re:I saw it last time (Score:3, Interesting)
a) try and find something in the distance to focus on (not easy at nighttime - luckily the sillhouette of the trees against the bright yellow London night sky sufficed)
b) try for ages to get the damn thing pointing in the right direction
c) Try not to look t
Re:I saw it last time (Score:4, Funny)
.
except it was pink.
I'm happy to report that I was able to run your image through a high-tech image-enhancement system. To further aid in visualization, the edge definition has been increased as well.
Here is the new image:
o
Hope this helps!
Re:I saw it last time (Score:2)
In Mr. Halley's dressing room... (Score:2)
Mr. Halley: Get the hell out of here! I aint appearing again until 2062, and that's that! No interviews, no nothing! Hey, it takes me 76 years to prepare for these shows, and I don't need somebody ruining my concentration...
It's not like imagine that lump of coal at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh.... (Score:2, Funny)
10km doesn't seem so big (Score:2, Interesting)
here's a stoopid question:
How long is halley's comet going to last? If its a little 10km diameter object thats not only melting on each pass, but breaking up as well, how many times can it survive its lap of the sun?
Inquiring Minds want to Know!
Re:10km doesn't seem so big (Score:1)
shouldn't that be 2067 ? (Score:1)
or did I miss something important somewhere?
Re:shouldn't that be 2067 ? (Score:2)
Re:shouldn't that be 2067 ? (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? You have some idea of of how the GRS appeared 200 years before Hooke (in the mid seventeenth century) inferred the rotational period of Jupiter? The earliest definitive observations of the GRS, btw, are those of Heinrich Schwabe (1831)
Re:Question (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:2)
and the Wikipedia seems to attribute the discovery to Galileo. In fact, it seems that these sources may have been backtracking-- the Great Red Spot is rather stable (having been described in detail, in the early 19th century), Galileo, Hooke, and Cassini observed Jupiter with crude telescopes capable of
Re:Question (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:2)
This Usenet post [google.com] argues that the observational history of the spot is muddled. Still, without ready access to primary source material, I feel I'm flogging a dead horse.
I do have a general science text from the 1830s that, in
Re:2062? (Score:2)
You mean "if he lost again".
TWW
Re:2062? (Score:1)
Re:I saw it in '86. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I saw it in '86. (Score:1)
Re:I saw it in '86. (Score:3, Informative)
In other news: Aricebo is a radio telescope.
Re:sexy (Score:1)
Re:here's a thought... (Score:1)
They don't know that you (Anonymous Coward) are American. So they put it in the cryptic metric system.