Talk:85P/Boethin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Astronomy because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPAstronomy}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPAstronomy}} template, removing {{WPAstronomy}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Wild theory

I've come across a weird theory telling that the Boethin comet is the same object as the WD5 asteroid. However, the only source I found is this article. So it is certainly a hoax, be warned. Kromsson (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet Boethin never broke up!

Citation from http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Sends_Spacecraft_On_Mission_To_Comet_Hartley_2_999.html

"Scientists theorize comet Boethin may have broken up into pieces too small for detection."

I am experienced amateur astronomer strongly interested in comets. Comet 85P was observed on 1975 and 1986 apparitions and was not observed in 1997 and (yet) 2008 apparitions [1] [2]. I know that comet Boethin never broke up! We could lose it because of non-gravitational forces [?] or non-stable brightness. There was no attempts to recover this comet on 1997 because it was almost exactly behind the Sun [3]. On 2008 there was few (negative) attempts to recover it (down to 25 mag) [4].

Therefore, I delete the citation. — Chesnok (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, but Yahoo groups are not a reliable source. Even if you had a reliable source that states this point of view, we should include both hypotheses, to satisfy encyclopedic breadth. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times is not a reliable source. At Yahoo groups, there is many competent astronomers but Henry Fountain is not an astronomer. — Chesnok (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found the source of this statement. It is strange that I haven't heard about it until now. This unsuccesful attempt to observe 85P and estimation of possible 85P remnants was not widely known among amateur astronomers. — Chesnok (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)