Slashdot Mirror
Halley's Comet Imaged As Transneptunian Object
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."
Reading this made me think of the comet rendevous in 2061. I doubt that I'll live to see something like that actualy accomplished.
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.
stuff
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).
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?
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
Here's the image, in case it gets /.'ed:
.
. . . . .
. , . . . . (the 2nd one)
. . . . . .
The spot was discovered by Robert Hooke in 1664. The spot is HUGE (large enough to hold to Earths) and back in the 15'th centurty it was much brighter. The red spot in the southern hemisphere has been there for about 400 years and is starting for fade.
... in seeing a comet without its dust tail??
and see if he is any more impressed than me. Perhaps he'll be more concerned about a 1 in 909,000 chance of an impact than he was about his odds of winning a frog jumping contest.
Well said, I wonder if he lost would he actually give up the office.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
Almost 1000 years ago, Halley's Comet was overhead during the Battle of Hastings in the year 1066. That long ago, the comet was said to have virtually filled the sky it was so bright. It must have been perceived as a powerful omen.
They can pick out such a small dark object at that distance. Makes me hope that maybe one day the Star Trek scenes where Picard asks Data for range to object and then has it on screen in living colour at 50 million Kilometres may one day become a reality.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
ESA's sekret plan is to point that baby at the Apollo landing site and prove once and for all, those lying Amerikanischer Schweinhund never made it to the moon!
The spot was discovered by Robert Hooke in 1664. The spot is HUGE (large enough to hold to Earths) and back in the 15'th centurty it was much brighter.
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)
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.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
That should be European Southern Observatory (www.eso.org).
-- "Sponges grow in the ocean. I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be if that didn't happen."
Are you really that stupid ?
Arecibo is a RADIO telescope.
There is no "glass".
I suggest removing the "not" from the end of your username.
Considering the fact that Aricebo is a radio telescope, i don't think you'll get much of a view. (well, aside from the fact that the telescope itself is quite a view...)
Hmmm, I read that as a 'gigantic explosion' involving Halley's Comet, however it seems to involve Comet 57P/du Toit-Neujmin-Delporte according to one of the linked articles. Did I miss something?
Hrmmph. Paranal It's 4am and I'm at work. It happens.
The link that is described as referring to an event involving Halley's Comet is talking about a different comet. I should poke around for events actually involving Halley's, but I'll just settle for saying that I don't recall hearing anything unusual as it wandered away, and I'm actually rather skeptical we could see so much of it at that time (though the latest imaging is an impressive accomplishment).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I think he meant "Earths" as in "multiple planets". You know, because an s denotes plurality.
Also, the use of the word "Earths" implies that not only can it hold two or three, it can hold many. It's a descriptive method of magnitude in this case.
Illiterate assrod.
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.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
{engage sarcastic dick mode}
REALLY?? You have some idea 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)
{disengage sarcastic dick mode}
You mean "if he lost again".
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The used a clever device which makes tiny things appear to be larger. However, the quality of the telescopes they used back then were probably not as good as telescopes you can find for $80 these days.
Or are there others who doubt if it is really good ol' Halley? Or atleast speculate how the astronomer's community can claim with any accuracy that it is Halley.
The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it.
- George Bernard Shaw
In other news: Aricebo is a radio telescope.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If they can image a piece of coal some 20,500km away... can they please try and find those black socks I lost on the beach at Scunthorpe last year???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Anyone else see the dancing mouse in the lower left hand corner? I swear, those darn magic eye pictures take me *FOREVER* to see....
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
"Halley has an orbital period just over 76 years and will return in 2062."
I plan on being out of town that year.
Thanks for reminding me, history has and will be made by this guy and I cannot see any good. "A little revolution now and then is a good thing" Thomas Jefferson
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
All who are in favor of renaming the comet to "Halle Berry's Comet", say Aye!
That one's to fuzzy. Here's a clearer image of Halle's Comment...
actually, a clever device which makes tiny things appear larger is called a microscope a clever device which makes distance things appear nearer is called a telescope
As I distinctly remember observing Halley with the naked eye in March 1996 then the /. take on all this is simply wrong.
I saw it last time it came close - I must have been 12 or 13. If I can make it to 89 without my eyesight failing too much, I hope to see it again, and by that time I hope I'll
a) Have a decent-sized telescope
b) Not live in London where you can't see a damn thing in the night sky
I for one welcome our new... ehm... comet overlo.. I'm sorry, I can't do this.
No heavens gate comments? I am dissapointed....
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...
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Slashdot's open for business, too! That wasn't Halley's comet that broke-up in '91 -- READ the stories you cite.
I'd put money on it in fact being impossible to view a lump of coal at that distance. In fact, I propose someone do a lump of coal viewing test. These people can get away with all sorts of silly analogies to make themselves seem impressive and nobody calls their bluff.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Not even the editors RTFA.
Forgive them. It's just ignorance.
They don't know that you (Anonymous Coward) are American. So they put it in the cryptic metric system.
Halley's comet didn't explode. Read the article!
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!
This link [St Andrew's University, UK] credits Hooke with determining that Jupiter rotates and this link [Wikipedia] and [Encylopaedia Britannica] credit discovery of the GRS to either Hooke or Cassini around 1665. Schwabe was the first person to produce an accurate drawing and description of the GRS.
If anyone has access to primary text material pointing to 17th century observations of the GRS, feel free to post them.
It clearly says comet 57P in a series in which Halley is comet 1P.
:P :P :P
READ THE ARTICLE, EDITORS.
The uncertainty seems to be (according to more than one source I've found) that both discovered it independently at about the same time. Hooke probably first, but Cassini published and took credit. Cassini's complete papers were published as 'Oeuvres diverses' in 1730 - earlier references may be in the papers of the Academie des Sciences (for Cassini) or the Royal Society (for Hooke). Another line of enquiry may be through the work of WF Denning: I found this paper online which talks about his analysis of the spot including a historical analysis (see start of page 22 in that link), and footnote 28 to that chapter (see this document) is a paper which should probably point to the primary sources. In response to the question 'was the red spot known about in the 1660s?' every source I've checked, including the Chambers Biographical Dictionary and a history by John Gribbin, gives the attribution of the discovery to Hooke and/or Cassini - that's sufficiently many independent sources I trust that I'm not inclined to doubt them all.
No.. you are mistaken..... telescopes dont affect any perception of distance (near/far) at all... so unless you believe that the tiny visage of Jupiter, which subtends less than 3/4 of 1/60th of a degree in the sky is not made to appear larger by a telescope, why dont you shut your stanky rat hole?
um.. 1991 + 76 != 2062...
or did I miss something important somewhere?
Thanks for the links. Pity that the historical sources are not online, though. The Denning book does mention that the Great Red Spot came into "striking prominence" in 1878, implying that the GRS is far from static. The Great Red Spot varies from 30 Mm to 40 Mm from decade to decade.
This Usenet post 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 its description of Jupiter fails to mention the spot--highlighting the banded nature of Jupiter instead. But that sort of evidence is quite weak.
It was 1986, we would invite our girlfriends to "see the Haley" at the beach.
I wonder how many children of Haley are around....
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
HUH? I'm not taking issue with the statement's intent (ie. earths implying multiple planets), I'm taking issue with his misue of the word "to" (in "to earths") instead of the word "two" (in "two earths").
Too bad you posted your would-be "correction" as an anonymous coward, which prevents me from passing the "illiterate fuck" sign and let you hang it over your shoulders in shame. It's also a shame you'll probably not even bother coming back to read this follow-up. But that's fine, because I am content in the knowledge that for as long as you live, you'll live out your days as illiterate fuckwad, extraordinaire.