Newly Spotted Comet May Shine Among Brightest In History

Reader intellitech points to an article at National Geographic, from which he excerpts: "If astronomers' early predictions hold true, the holidays next year may hold a glowing gift for stargazers—a superbright comet, just discovered streaking near Saturn. Even with powerful telescopes, comet 2012 S1 (ISON) is now just a faint glow in the constellation Cancer. But the ball of ice and rocks might become visible to the naked eye for a few months in late 2013 and early 2014—perhaps outshining the moon, astronomers say. The comet is already remarkably bright, given how far it is from the sun, astronomer Raminder Singh Samra said. What's more, 2012 S1 seems to be following the path of the Great Comet of 1680, considered one of the most spectacular ever seen from Earth."

Comments

More Corona peeze

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> asuperbright comet, just discovered streaking near Saturn

Sweet -- look at the tail on that streaker!

Whats more

[Osgeld]

"What's more, 2012 S1 seems to be following the path of the Great Comet of 1680, considered one of the most spectacular ever seen from Earth."

got a link? no?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Great+comet+of+1680&l=1

jeez, if your going to reference something in an article take 2 seconds to post a link

Re:Whats more

[yotto]

I love clicking on a link that purports to be informative, when I did nothing wrong myself, and be presented with a page that tells me to run javascript.

How about an actual link?

https://www.google.com/search?q=great+comit+of+1680
or even better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Comet_of_1680

Re:Whats more

[ElizabethGreene]

This is timely. I just finished reading Lucifer's Hammer, a book about a massive comet strike. Interesting book. I found it intriguing how much of the book was still applicable despite its age.

I'll believe it when I see it

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm old enough to have heard this sort of speculation about Kohoutek as well.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm old enough to have heard this sort of speculation about Kohoutek as well.

That's fair enough, science hasn't changed since 1973. I believe that history will ultimately show that the decline of science started with the break-up of The Doors, though others contend that it was the rise of The Butts Band. Still others mark 1973 as the beginning of the end of civilisation itself, implying that the impact of the break-up of The Doors created tear in the fabric of human social history that was not simply limited to the decline of scientific endeavour.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm old enough to remember Comet Bennett, in the early winter of 1970. I walked to school every morning, keeping my eye fixed on it, much to the irritation of the drivers that I somewhat randomly shared the roads with.
    I had a 4.5" Newtonian back home; but telescopes are not the best means of looking at comets. A decent pair of 7x50 binoculars are much better.
    I'm looking forward to this one. I took some good pix of McNaught, just at sunset, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge. This time I might do better.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[guttentag]

I'm just old enough to remember seeing Halley's Comet in '86 and telling my parents I'd be too old to remember the first sighting when it came back in 2061.

And I remember the next day at school when the teacher asked if everyone saw the comet, and one person proudly announced that he watched it on TV. That was the first time I said the word "dumbass" in public. I have a terrible feeling that the percentage of kids who tell the class they saw the comet on TV (or "YouTwitFace" -- the future conglomerate of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook) will be much higher the next time around.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[Mashiki]

I remember them saying the same thing about Haley's comet too. I've got the original article out of either Time or OMNI on it saying that it'll be so bright it'll outshine the moon as well. I remember seeing it as a kid, it looked like a slow moving satellite.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Kohoutek was hyped to be very spectacular . . . folks were even wishfully speculating that it might have been the Three Wise Men Jesus Birthday Star.

But it fizzled out. The Snoopy comics were probably more interesting.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it

[bruce_the_loon]

Kohoutek was supposed to be a brilliant comet once it emerged from behind the sun on the outward leg of the orbit. What came out was what in pyrotechnic terms was a damp squib.

One theory I heard posted about was that the comet's trajectory came too close to the sun and the heat actually burned the surface and fused it into a organic mess, like tar, and it was unable to vent as it should have. Another was that it broke up behind the sun.

As with all things in Yankee culture, the name became a brand name for duds and failure.

Kohoutek

[mbone]

I am also old enough to remember the speculation about Kohoutek.

It is notoriously hard to predict the brightness of "new" comets, as you know nothing about their history.

Re:Kohoutek

[rs79]

I'm old enough to remember suggesting to Halley "hey, try looking over there."

Re:Kohoutek

[Olix]

That's interesting: Do you think that 'It is notoriously hard to predict the brightness of "new" comets' because of Kokoutek?

Re:Kohoutek

[enilnomi]

"Yeah. Look," Harvey said, "can you name one newsman who lost his reputation because of Kahoutek?" He nodded at the puzzled look that got. "Right. None. No chance. The public blamed the astronomers for blowing it all out of proportion. Nobody blamed the news people."

"Why should they? You were quoting the astronomers."

"Half the time," Harvey agreed. "But we quoted the ones who said exciting things. Two interviews. One man says Kahoutek is going to be the Big Christmas Comet. Another says, well, it's going to be a comet, but you might not see it without field glasses. Guess which tape gets shown on the six o'clock news?"

--Lucifer's Hammer; Niven & Pournelle, 1977

Obligatory 'End of the World' thread here

[Mister Liberty]

For starters, 2013 minus 2000 equals 13.

Re:Obligatory 'End of the World' thread here

[lxs]

It's Hale-Bopp all over again.
(Mental note: Buy a pair of purple Nikes for everyone in the commune.)

Wonder when

[kiriath]

All the nutcases will be busting out the Kool-aid

Re:Religious implications

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind.
"Because the orbits of the two comets are similar doesn’t necessarily mean that the 1680 comet is the same as C/2012 S1 (ISON). It’s more likely a fragment of that comet. The orbital period of the 1680 comet is somewhere around 9,000-10,000 years, so the last time it was near Earth was long before the birth of Christ."

In 1680

[Anonymous Coward]

there was no light pollution. You could actually see the Milky Way and even dim comets would stand out in the night sky.

Now you can barely spot the full moon anywhere outside North Korea.

Re:In 1680

[History's Coming To]

Or, you know, the 99.9% of the world that's nowhere near major cities. Greetings from the Scottish Highlands, the night sky is really quite stunning here.

Re:In 1680

[Gavagai80]

I can see the milky way (if not very clearly), living in a town of 15K only 30 miles from a big city. You really don't have to be in the middle of nowhere for a decent sky, just get out of the big city.

Re:In 1680

[AlecC]

I saw Comet Hale Bopp quite clearly from beside a pool in a Las Vegas hotel, surely one of the most light polluted places in the world. I saw it much more clearly from my home in the English countryside, but a good comet can get through a lot of pollution.

Re:Apocalypse

[maxwell demon]

Something about the Mayans and December 21st, etc.

-AI

You mean, the Mayans miscalculated by one year?

FTFS: But the ball of ice and rocks might become visible to the naked eye for a few months in late 2013 and early 2014

It signals ...

[drrilll]

the coming of dragons

Re:Religious implications

[maxwell demon]

10 AD is outside the range of dates in which the birth of Jesus could have happened. At that time, Herod was already dead for over a decade.

If you are interested in a good overview on the theories about the star of Bethlehem, I've found this page quite informative.

Re:Apocalypse

[jesseck]

You mean, the Mayans miscalculated by one year?

FTFS: But the ball of ice and rocks might become visible to the naked eye for a few months in late 2013 and early 2014

That is the reason the article uses the word "might"... they are expecting the world to end this December, but in the unlikely chance the revered and more-advanced-than-us Mayans were wrong, we could see the comet.

Re:How can I see this?

[ColdWetDog]

Try looking up.

At night.

Re:How can I see this?

[RockDoctor]

The descriptions so far are a bit vague to give precise directions. Because comets are shedding appreciable mass, which can have a rocket effect on the trajectory, and they're typically tumbling irregularly, and they're warming up (irregularly, under the influence of both previous effects) then this early in an apparition, it's not really worthwhile making close predictions of the comet's path through the solar system, and thus of it's track across the night sky.

The current magnitude (18.8) is several million times too dim for naked-eye observation. The comet is predicted to become binocular-visible in August 2013, and maybe naked-eye visible from late September or early October for a month or two. I would take an industrial-scale pinch of salt with those figures.

Not possessing a telescope, I'd look at getting an updated ephemeris (listing of it's path on the plane of the sky) in July next year.

Re:How can I see this?

[KenSeymour]

Check this site every few months until late 2013. They are great for new and charts.