Slashdot Mirror


Comet Catalina Coming To a Night Sky Near You (www.cbc.ca)

TigerNut writes: CBC is running a story on the upcoming closest approach of Comet Catalina. While the headline makes it sound like a one-night deal for the morning of January 1, the best viewing may actually occur next weekend (Jan 8-10) because the moon will not be a bright distraction at that time. The CBC reports: "Comet Catalina, which is less than 20 kilometres across, was discovered in 2013 by the Tuscon, Ariz.-based Catalina Sky Survey, which looks for potentially hazardous near-Earth objects. At first, it was thought to be a very large near-Earth asteroid. But astronomers soon realized it was actually a very long, near-parabolic orbit and observations with the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope showed 'modest cometary activity.'"

26 comments

  1. we've become part of a poem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sing along https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCZWv5U5wJ4 ..all volunteers

  2. I can see it right now by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Informative

    Catalina is very easy to find right now because in the predawn sky it's right next to the bright orange star Arcturus, which is the star that the handle of the Big Dipper points to. Night after night, it will move toward the Dipper and then up the handle.

    1. Re:I can see it right now by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the detailed instructions on how to find it! Someone please mod this up as informative!

      The only problem I have now is, at predawn . . . I am usually in bed, in a deep sleep . . . unless I have stayed up all night. Why can't these astronomical interesting things occur at humane hours, like, at midnight?

      And also, being that I am in Northern Europe at the moment . . . the sky is too cloudy anyway :-(

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:I can see it right now by turkeydance · · Score: 2

      exactly...so IF something is visible without binoculars/telescope, and the sun/moon/weather don't interfere, then make every effort to see it. personally, i'm already planning for the 2017 eclipse (vacation, etc.)

    3. Re:I can see it right now by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Arcturus, which is the star that the handle of the Big Dipper points to.

      More precisely, Arcturus is one of two major stars along the projected curve formed by the handle. "Follow the arc to Arcturus; speed on to Spica."

    4. Re:I can see it right now by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's no sky like Arizona sky. But because this is an El Niño year, we are getting a lot more clouds and rain than usual; though the last two nights were perfect, the next week may be wiped out. So seek those clear skies wherever you may find them.

  3. Near-parabolic? by Deadstick · · Score: 2

    What the hell does that mean?

    If it's parabolic but really really long, "near-hyperbolic" would be a reasonable description -- that's not out of the ordinary for comets.

    1. Re:Near-parabolic? by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Funny

      What the hell does that mean?

      If it's parabolic but really really long, "near-hyperbolic" would be a reasonable description -- that's not out of the ordinary for comets.

      Presumably it means that its orbit is closed - elliptical - but is only very loosely gravitationally bound--perhaps even more so that most comets. In other words, its velocity is only just shy of escape velocity, hence near-parabolic. Yes, mathematically speaking, that means that its orbit must also be near-hyperbolic; an infinitesimal increase in velocity converts a parabolic path into a hyperbolic one (and an infinitesimal decrease in velocity converts a parabolic path into a long-period ellipse).

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Near-parabolic? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      OK, sorry, I mentally substituted "elliptical" for "parabolic". It was a long night...;-)

      Yes, eccentricity barely less than 1 would be nearly parabolic. My bad.

    3. Re:Near-parabolic? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Catalina is in a hyperbolic orbit, meaning that because it slightly exceeds the escape velocity of the Solar System, it is headed for interstellar space and will never be seen again.

      And it's a virgin comet, pulled into the inner System from the Oort cloud for the first time. Because this could just as easily be the scenario for the next Earth-killer asteroid, we need to find a science-friendly location for that Thirty Meter Telescope, so that it can be built and possibly spot such an object in time for us to deflect it. Let's all pull for the Tibetan Plateau.

  4. Not coming to a sky near -me- by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 2

    I live in the middle of the Sprawl; if I'm lucky, on a very clear night, I see 9 stars (I counted). If I drive 20 miles, I'll at least see more stars than I have fingers but I'd probably need twice that for a even a /chance/ to see the comet. And for "astronomy class", ohmigosh-the-universe-is-huge-I-need-to-go-home-and-reconsider-my-place-in-the-universe type of sky-gazing, we're talking at least a 200 mile drive to get clear of the light and pollution of the cities. And I /know/ that whatever day I set aside to make that drive, it's going to be cloudy that night.

    It's a shame too. I personally think that the reason our society is becoming insular and risk-averse is that - with so many of us cloistered in cities - we no longer have the awe-inspiring panorama of the night-sky coming out every night to challenge us. Surrounded by our warrens, the universe looks conquered already, so why bother spending trillions just to poke the "rare" unexplored bit? Sometimes I half-believe our society would react like in Asimov's "Nightfall" were we all suddenly to be confronted with an unblemished night sky again.

    1. Re:Not coming to a sky near -me- by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      Yes, light pollution sucks big time.
      If you can see bright stars, you can surely see Venus, Saturn and Jupiter.
      They're pretty fun to look at, even with a small and cheap dobsonian (e.g. http://www.telescope.com/Teles...).
      I love mine, and it helps me connect with our sky even in a light polluted area. I can also see some of the brightest nebulae and galaxies.
      I'm pretty sure you'd be able to see Catalina with it even from the Sprawl.

    2. Re:Not coming to a sky near -me- by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      I'm totally with you on the lack of naked-eye night-sky access and I definitely don't want to minimize the loss it represents to city-dwelling humanity. I live in a large city way down at the bottom of the Bortle scale, in the center of one of those whited-out you-can't-see-a-thing patches on the light pollution maps. From time to time I'm lucky enough to get away to a little cabin in the woods with impeccable dark skies, but the rest of the time I have to make do with viewing from the parking lot next to my apartment building.

      That said - and the article mentions this, but it's worth reiterating - a surprising amount of the sky becomes accessible again for those of us with even basic digital SLRs (and even some of the more fully-featured point-and-shoots). Last January, the nominally-naked-eye comet Lovejoy (C/2014 Q2) was in the sky near the Pleiades. No hope of seeing it with my own eyes, but it was an easy target for just about any lens in my camera bag. It's trivial to capture stars down below ninth magnitude There's a little bit of - a different sort of - magic to being able to pull so much of the night sky out of the muck.

      I could probably do some moderately impressive things with binoculars, too, but I'm a bit concerned about what the neighbors would think.

      Incidentally, the suggested camera settings provided in the CBC article (ISO 1600, 30 second exposure) may be a bit aggressive for very bright city skies, and will definitely show at least some star trailing. Don't be afraid to play around. My skies start to get too bright if I go beyond ISO 800, f/3.5, 5 s or equivalent. And a five-second exposure is close to the limit if you want to avoid perceptible star trails at a medium-wide focal length.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:Not coming to a sky near -me- by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how much you can see with a telescope and a light pollution reduction filter. You could probably make out the comet and some brighter nebula. I frequently do in the middle of bright cities. But there really is no substitute for a truly dark sky.

    4. Re:Not coming to a sky near -me- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeings as where Arcturus is the 5th brightest star (counting the sun) you should be able to find the star with little to no problem. After that you use binoculars and see the comet.
       
      Even in dark skies it'll be unlikely to see the comet without binoculars.

  5. Re:tears in the sky no more? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Those Repukians deny that comets exist.

    You jest, but I was listening on the radio this past week to a denier denying that dinosaurs ever existed. So I'm pretty certain thaere are a fair number of people out there that don't believe in comets.

    Its almost funny, this ascendency of personal incredulity in America these days. The entire concept is based on declaring the stupidest person in the room the winner.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  6. It's the f*cking Catalina Comet light mixer.... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    I'll show myself out, thanks.

  7. Confusion by codeButcher · · Score: 2

    And here I thought this is some awful marketing gimmick for some vastly speed-improved version of the Tomcat servlet container.....

    Turns out Wikipedia's disambiguation page could use some updating.

    Further turns out the thing's proper name is C/2013 US10

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  8. TUCSON by zaft · · Score: 1

    For {deity}'s sake, it's TUCSON not "Tuscon".

  9. Re:tears in the sky no more? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Ha! I am not the only one. I'm actually rather fond of talk radio but I usually find myself listening to NPR. I'm not so naive as to say that they are not without bias but, I digress and that's immaterial.

    See, I sometimes find myself listening to things like Fox News Radio or whatever they call it. The thing is, I'm pretty sure that they don't actually understand *why* I'm listening. Oh, I'd sure as hell not count on it for being unbiased, accurate, or even news. I listen to it because it's colorful and damned good entertainment. It's funnier than hell to hear some of the opinion shows, listen to the folks call in, and then listen to their talking heads have a discussion on deep subjects such as politics, science, religion, or current events.

    It's a great source of entertainment when you're driving, late at night, on a desolate highway with nothing but the mile markers to keep you company. The missus, snuggled up in her seat, and some guy telling me that the Democrats are all lizard people who eat the brains of good Christian children as a delicacy. The best part is that it's free entertainment!

    Oh, and don't get me wrong, the Democrats are equally stupid but I hold them to a higher standard because they claim they are more intelligent and they, at least, ought to know better than to do some of what they do. I'm also aware that NPR has its slant and probably has some objective. But they're just not nearly as funny as a late night talk show on Fox New Radio. The next best thing is some crazy guy that I sometimes find on AM radio. I don't know his name but I'm pretty sure he's convinced there are aliens everywhere, people living in the hollow earth, and that we're all just mice in a cage so that the Master Race can study us. Great entertainment!

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  10. Re:tears in the sky no more? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Ha! I am not the only one. I'm actually rather fond of talk radio but I usually find myself listening to NPR. I'm not so naive as to say that they are not without bias but, I digress and that's immaterial.

    The issue of bias in news is interesting. There is so much going on in the world, that merely picking what to report on reveals some bias.

    See, I sometimes find myself listening to things like Fox News Radio or whatever they call it. The thing is, I'm pretty sure that they don't actually understand *why* I'm listening. Oh, I'd sure as hell not count on it for being unbiased, accurate, or even news. I listen to it because it's colorful and damned good entertainment. Oh yeah. Where I eat breakfast in the morning they often have Fox on. And it is trememdously entertaining. I'm proud to sy I witnessed live, the expert who delclared solar energy in the US a failure, but a success in Germany was due to Germany being a sunnier place. Damn near lost it. I didn'nt hav eht eexact numbers, but was tring to imagine the black forest regin as sunnier the Nevada or south coastal California. Tuenr out that Germany gets about as much insolation as south coastal Alaska, where we wouldn't even think to put up a solar array, but they are doing it and pretty well - but I digress.

    It's funnier than hell to hear some of the opinion shows, listen to the folks call in, and then listen to their talking heads have a discussion on deep subjects such as politics, science, religion, or current events.

    It's a great source of entertainment when you're driving, late at night, on a desolate highway with nothing but the mile markers to keep you company. The missus, snuggled up in her seat, and some guy telling me that the Democrats are all lizard people who eat the brains of good Christian children as a delicacy. The best part is that it's free entertainment!

    I tend toward the religion stations myself. Used to try to check out Howard Camping as much as possible - He was the guy who predicted the end of the world in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... What a hoot he was.

    I was in asteakhouse in Dayton Ohio with a group of friends that day, and we told the waitress she couldn't give us our check until after 5:00 when the world was supposed to end. We counted down with a number of other patrons, and by golly - we were still there!

    But os many interesting moments on Religion radio, complete with pastors ripping up their shirts and will send oyu a scrap of it for a donation of course, blessed oil, and my favorite minister, Peter Popoff sending you vials od god powered water that will make you wealthy.

    Oh, and don't get me wrong, the Democrats are equally stupid but I hold them to a higher standard because they claim they are more intelligent and they, at least, ought to know better than to do some of what they do.

    None are that awesome, but I find the crucial difference Is Democrats are willing to compromise. Mind you, I'm a Goldwater type conservative, which means most of the present day Republicans think I'm a liberal.

    The next best thing is some crazy guy that I sometimes find on AM radio. I don't know his name but I'm pretty sure he's convinced there are aliens everywhere, people living in the hollow earth, and that we're all just mice in a cage so that the Master Race can study us. Great entertainment!

    Art Bell Coast to coast maybe? He has a lot of off the wall stuff on his show.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  11. Re:tears in the sky no more? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Yes! Art Bell is the guy, indeed. I'm actually not sure if it is he who is loony or if he just lets the loony people participate in his show? I've no idea what politics he holds, what his beliefs are, or if he has some sort of agenda. He's the one (from checking online by searching for his name that you shared with me) that I am thinking of. He's not the only one -- he just seems to be about the most popular.

    Depending on where you are in the country (they'll often be localized and not syndicated) you can find a bunch more just like him. Well, that's not entirely accurate. There don't appear to be a "bunch" and they're not "just like him." But, they're different only exactly the same. *nods* I've found a great one in Alabama but, alas, you'll have to wait for me to go to Alabama (right next door to my current stop - almost a certainty that I'll go there) before I can recollect and share the name.

    The AM band is kind of awesome like that. I'm told that it's relatively inexpensive to set up a lower-powered AM station. If I recall correctly, you'd know a great deal about that - far more than I ever would. Hmm... Was that you? Yeah - I'm pretty sure. You're into radio and have a ham license, as I recollect? Wife, Mint, no kernel updates, ham radio, PA, not in a major city or outside of it, and whatnot?

    So, yeah, you'd almost certainly know more about the AM station thing than I would but I understand that it's neither difficult nor expensive to get an AM station on the air. If you recall a conversation of ours, some months ago, then you might remember that I could probably put an AM station up but have no idea how to do so. (Large antenna, chance to buy a large tower, friends who are hams, and having what they call a "cold backup" site that they plan on putting to use if the zombie apocalypse comes.) I have all the equipment, I bought much of it new but some of it is stuff that they've brought over. I actually know some of how it works and I listen sometimes but I don't use the key or the mic. I'm also way up on the side of a mountain so I'd probably have good propagation to the E, SE, and S.

    I've tried the religion thing but I just can't get into listening to it. I'm more a talk-news and not a preach-at kind of guy. This doesn't mean that I don't do it - it just means that I'm usually looking for talk radio that's not religious in nature.

    But, there has been talk from some people (I assume that they're young) who want to get rid of the AM bands altogether. It's disheartening that folks would even suggest that. I find the band wonderfully fun at times. As it's so inexpensive and easy to get access, you end up getting things that might not be profitable enough to put onto the FM bands. I haven't found any in years but I used to come across a channel or two that was actually a bit like the public access cable channels. They were every bit as bad (read as good) as one might expect.

    Oh, seeing as I have you here... Sometimes I come across an AM channel that claims to be in stereo. I don't think my receiver can handle AM stereo. I'd thought that the bandwidth for stereo was a bit more than AM could handle while still being within their assigned power levels. So, while I've never had/heard/used any AM broadcasts in stereo - why not? Are the occasional ads for stereo AM broadcasts legit? Do I actually need special hardware to properly process stereo in the AM spectrum? I'm pretty sure that the radio's documentation specifically mentions FM, FM Stereo, and AM (but no AM Stereo). I'll also add that I don't think I've used the AM function of the car that I have with me on my wanderlust. I'm pretty sure it has it - but I've never used it. I've only done FM and streamed stuff to it by way of my phone.

    If you can shed some light and give an old feeble man some information (or even where I might search for the technical details) that'd be awesome but don't go out of your way to do it on my behalf. It's not really that important. I just seem to recollect that you're a ham and so I can probably rely on you for intelligent (and correct) answers and this subject reminds me to ask you.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."