Talk:C/2006 P1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon C/2006 P1 is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

This article has comments here.

Great Comet?[edit]

I know that space.com is calling it a great comet, but I don't think it fits the definition, at least not as defined in that article. Not only is there almost nothing about it in the mainstream media, very few people have seen it with their own eyes. The definition of a great comet is one that is so obvious it cannot escape notice even to the casual observer. This one, while very bright, is very small and too close to the Sun to gain casual notice, and is fading already. Many great comets in the past (typically Kreutz sungrazers) were easily visible in daylight and stretched across the sky, including this one on the list would seem to dilute it. Robogun 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This comet, however, seems to fit the definition. It is the brightest in 40+ years, making it the second brightest in 70+ years, after Ikeya-Seki which shone at mag. -7 - -17. As the comet had a close approach to the sun, it was visible in broad daylight. Daylight comets are rare, and thus should be considered great comets. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to hazard a guess: Robogun comes from the Northern Hemisphere? From a Southern Hemisphere perspective, this comet is great. GetDownAdam 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, note that "Great Comet" is not an astronomical term and its definition is rather subjective. Robogun 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Visibility[edit]

Its currently very conspicuous. I just spotted it by accident whilst driving home towards the sunset, about 20 minutes after the sun went down. I live nearish to London if that helps anyone. --LiamE 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This could be one to watch, because it is already brighter than any star in the night sky! An image would be helpful, either a user's self-taken image, or a non-copyrighted image from another website. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should point out in the article that as it is only visible in partly dark skies that it may not be as spectacular as its brightness rating suggests? --LiamE 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, and since it may be quite close to the sun, maybe someone should add that it could be hard to see, because when the sun is close to setting, the comet would already be very low in the sky, so it's best viewed in a rural area. It may also be confused with Venus, and maybe it should be expected as about the same brightness as Sirius, because it is so low in the sunset skies. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont think it could be confused with anything at the moment. When I saw it yesterday I was driving and not even looking for it! It is VERY obviously a comet. --LiamE 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So is it near the sun in say, Texas? Cause i went to check it out, but i couldn't see it. Omiks3 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You have to catch it immediately after the sun goes below the horizon. SchmuckyTheCat 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
another pic
It's already getting very close to the sun, and tonight may be your last chance to see it in the Northern hemisphere. If you have a telescope, you just might be able to find the comet's large coma and it's very long tail. If you use a telescope, and it's not too close to the sun, you might be able to trace the tail for 5-30 degrees! You need a clear view of the horizon and a clear western/southern sky. It's right next to Venus. I havn't seen it, but if you check SOHO, you might see it for today and the next few days, and it's expected to be even brighter than comet NEAT in 2003! I could provide a few external links to SOHO if you want so you can catch the comet live when it gets too close to the sun. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


This comet can be seen also by day from virtually everywhere in the world! Just place yourself so that Sun is covered by a building, then look 5-6 degrees to the east and there it is! Kanarkusmaximus 13.43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


For what it's worth from southern Nashville, Tennessee, the 20th of January 2007 at approximately 5:30 PM last evening, we were able to see the comet in the western sky, from our automobile, unaided, and quite visible with its long glowing tail. I would guess it was about 10 degrees above the horizon following the setting sun. Not since Hale-Bopp have I seen a bright comet and this one was quite a sight. -- Greenbomb101 14:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SOHO[edit]

From this, it looks like the comet's coma is larger than volume than the sun! Even Comet NEAT's coma wasn't that big. It certainly does look like the largest, brightest, and most spectacular comet SOHO has ever seen. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we add a picture from SOHO to the gallery? I'm new to wikipedia and not sure of how that work. Justin stocks 21:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to check SOHO's copyright status. I never thought the comet would be visible in daylight. If it is, it would have to be the brightest comet in about half a century! They say it's mag. 3, but to be able to be visible, it would require at least mag 5. Considering its coma is possibly even bigger than the sun, like about 5 times bigger than the sun in volume, I'm not surpized! Well, I am, but considering it was bigger than NEAT, and NEAT was predicted to reach mag. -5 by some, I think this comet has reached mag. 5. Should it still not be added to the article due to WP:OR?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroHurricane001 (talkcontribs)

Apparent Magnitude[edit]

This magnitude figure is obviously incorrect as -3.9 is the level at which celestial objects become visible to the naked eye during the day:

"In Australia, the comet was expected[citation needed] to peak in brightness at ~mag. -0.1 on Monday, 15 January, 2007, following sunset, where it would have been visible for some 39 minutes."

...so the magnitude in this statement must be a figure of less than -3.9 (as the apparent magnitude increases in the direction of decreasing figures on the scale e.g. The Sun is magnitude -26.73).--Elizabeth Jane 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference to the date of expected brightest in Australia, which Siding Spring Observatory at ANU says is theoretically 14th January 2007 ("It is close to sunset on the 14th that the comet will reach its theoretical brightest.") - i.e. not the 15th as stated here - (no magnitude reference there as yet though!).--Elizabeth Jane 02:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have fixed this error, amending the date and providing a magnitude observation:

After passing the sun, Comet McNaught became visible in the Southern Hemisphere, on Sunday, 14 January. It was sighted in Broken Hill, NSW, Australia, at 2015-hours Australian Central Daylight Time.[citation needed] In Australia, according to Siding Spring Observatory at Coonabarabran, where the comet was discovered, the comet was to have reached its theoretical peak in brightness on Sunday, 14th January, 2007 just after sunset[1], when it would have been visible above the horizon for just 23 minutes following sunset as it was then only 5° from the setting sun. On the 15th January, 2007 the comet was observed at Perth Observatory with an estimated apparent magnitude of -4.0.[2]

Note that there is still a need for a citation for the sighting at Broken Hill (in the previous sentence) - does anyone know where this reference can be found?--Elizabeth Jane 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can zap that. Even if corroborated, what is its significance. Robogun 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Robogun! The significance is the first recorded sighting in the Southern Hemisphere, where it was discovered - not insignificant if you live in the Southern Hemisphere. Some of us do!

Sounds good. It could use more detail about the claim, & the observer's name. Also, the info is not useful unless dated. The timing of the observation should be in GMT or Julian date format for worldwide comparison. Australian CDT (which also serves western NSW) has a half-hour offset which could confuse users in other parts of the world. The only source of the information I can locate is from user Jslasher in page Revision as of 00:10, 15 January 2007 [[1]] Robogun 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone falsified the maximum estimated apparent magnitude for the Harvard reference by changing it to -5.5 to conform to the conflicting Spaceweather.com reference (presumably). Now I am not suggesting that anyone play around with the Spaceweather.com reference either - but comets are sighted under different conditions all over the world and a sighting in one place is not uniform for the whole world. Harvard has recorded three sightings of -6.0 or higher and one from Japan of -5.8, cited here for your convenience:

  • 14.71, -6:*, -- (J. J. Gonzalez, Asturias, Spain, naked eye; 1.5-deg tail in p.a. 50 deg; just before sunset; alt. 2.2 deg);
  • 14.37, -6.0:*, about 1' (M. Reszelski, Poznan, Poland, naked eye; daylight; comp. with Venus; 0.1-deg tail barely visible for a while);
  • 13.92, -6:, -- (S. J. O'Meara, Volcano, HI, U.S.A., naked eye; daylight, alt. about 60 deg; comet *much* brighter than Venus; est. uncertainty +/- 0.5 mag; tail about 0.75 deg long);
  • 14.32, -5.8:*, -- (Y. Nagai, Gunma, Japan, 7x35 binoculars; 1-deg tail; 4 min after sunset; comp. with Venus);

Harvard is a different reference to Spaceweather - please leave my reference to stand for itself and do not falsify it to conform to the Spaceweather.com reference. Both are valid references. Spaceweather.com is A reference, not THE reference!--Elizabeth Jane 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I doubt anyone is falsifying anything. It should be understood that the estimated naked eye magnitude reports in that list are inferior to measurements by instruments, and are the best guesses of the observer in the field. The data is meant to be plotted in aggregate to get a light curve, with substantial deviations from the resultant curve to be discarded. The maximum verified apparent magnitude on record for c/2006 p1 is -5.5 as seen here [3]. The list found here [4] is a compilation of user estimates and should not be taken as gospel.
Robogun 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not true Robogun. The scale is based upon visual comparison with other stellar objects. It is all very well to use highly accurate readings of non-variable stars with sophisticated equipment stationed at observatories, as such readings can be made and exist, but a comet is highly variable, short lasting, appears under different atmospheric conditions on Earth during its progress (during which time it is constantly changing in its location in space and in its relationship to the Earth and to the Sun) and is also subject to "spaceweather", which I am sure Spaceweather.com will not dispute. There are reliable astronomical observers all over the world, and these observers have reported the apparent magnitude to Harvard from their location and at the times observed and recorded by them, and these observations have been accepted and recorded by Harvard, and I have cited them. These are the average maximum readings reported - they range upwards to -6.5 and -6.* - and it is the average that I have used, not the upper limits. Harvard is a valid reference, and so is Spaceweather.com. And my reference clearly states -6.0 as the maximum apparent magnitude observed in the Northern Hemisphere.--219.90.149.227 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the plot, it would be better to use that than to pick out the four brightest estimates and average them, that is clearly a statistical error. Robogun 06:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that maximum means the highest, not the median or the mean of all figures - that would result in a positive figure, I would guess. Extreme accuracy is not equivalent or relevant to "highest" - the 10th highest figure calculated to twenty decimal places is still only the 10th highest figure - it just happens to have been a very accurately recorded figure because such equipment happened to be available and was used at that location and that time. That does not invalidate other observations. A statistical average taken from many places over many occasions results in an accurate apparent order of magnitude for a star, but that is inapplicable in this case - here the observations do not apply to any stable object, or even to a stable range of magnitude. The figures, though expressing accuracy, are not subject to verification since the object is observationally volatile. The figures given by visual observation are not accurate to more than +/- 0.5 orders of magnitude, but that does not mean that they are not to be considered credible, only that they are not highly accurate. And if they are credible that is sufficient accuracy to determine that the maximum is -6.0 - i.e. to one decimal place. Extreme accuracy is not the question here, nor does it have any meaning or relevance in this case. It is about "maximum estimated apparent magnitude". --Elizabeth Jane 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is it's not up to us to be performing these calculations. What is confusing is there are two Harvard-based lists, one with raw data and the other listing the accepted maximum.
Therefore, if we are going to quote -6.0 in the article, it must be placed in the context of estimated magnitudes. I did not change your reference, because of its obvious value, however I placed it in that context, refer to the main article to see how I described it. Robogun 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The link Recent Comet Brightness Estimates appeared twice in Links section. Please remove it. Chesnok 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does it say mag. +12? Or is it mag. -12? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Kronk's page had the comet up to +9 prior to December, so the page has been updated to reflect this.

I would like to add another -6.0 observation from Recent Comet Brightness Estimates to those previously quoted (above):

  • 13.56, -6:, -- (A. Amorim, Florianopolis, Brazil, naked eye and sunglasses; daylight; comp. w/ Venus);

The Spaceweather.com data is actually different data. It does not include the higher magnitude Harvard data. They appear to have one observation of -6.0 or very close to -6.0. If they had the Harvard data as well they would have had six such observations, rather than just one. Six human beings considered credible scientific witnesses by both Harvard and/or Spaceweather...?! In independently corroborating each other's observations their credibility is enhanced, rather than diminished. (And remember, their credibility or observations have not been objectively refuted!)

... Yes, this is "estimated magnitude", certainly and "apparent" (as in "as appears visually"), as opposed to "absolute magnitude". --Elizabeth Jane 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Info Box[edit]

The orbital data given seem to be incredibly precise. I checked the link and those numbers are indeed on there, but it's likely just an artifact of a computer calulation, not an exact measurement. For instance, the perihelion distance goes on for about fifteen decimal places. Do we really know the perihelion to within a tenth of a millimeter?

We don't really know that, but those are the predictions from the NASA website. Sure, it could be off by a few metres, but since the source says that, it should be kept as that. People who don't think it is that precise could round off a few digits. The perihelion number should be kept as the source number, and if the source changes, then you could change it. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comet McNaught[edit]

How about we change the name of the page from C/2006 P1 to Comet McNaught

User:Silverhorse

That won't be nessecary, becuase you could simply type in "Comet McNaught" and it will redirect to this article. We can't really move it to "Comet McNaught", because that page already exists. A redirect page already removes the hassle. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, never mind. I guess they changed it anyway. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The move caused many double redirects. Please check them next time. I have already fixed them this time. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


I moved the following info from the main page, which was added 03:27, 21 January 2007 by User:Urhixidur

There are eleven other "Comets McNaught": C/1987 U3 (a.k.a. 1987 XXXII, 1987b1), C/2005 E2, C/2005 L2, C/2005 L3, C/2005 S4, C/2006 B1, C/2006 E1, C/2006 K1, C/2006 K3, C/2006 L2, and C/2006 Q1.
There are nine periodic comets called McNaught as well: P/2004 K2 (McNaught 1), P/2004 R1 (McNaught 2), P/2005 J1 (McNaught 3), P/2005 K3 (McNaught 4), P/2005 L1 (McNaught 5), P/2005 Y2 (McNaught 6), P/2006 G1 (McNaught 7), P/2006 H1 (McNaught 8), and P/2006 K2 (McNaught 9).

Perhaps a disambiguation page or ? The McNaught comets have no pages as of yet. Robogun 07:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this move. While they are all redlinks the disambiguation seems unnecessary. The info can be added to McNaught's page.--Golden Wattle talk 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please upload images to Commons[edit]

To all those who upload images of the comet: Please upload the images to the Commons, and put it in [[Category:Comet McNaught]]. Thank you! --Vesta 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I put one in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Comet_McNaught Comet-McNaught-Mt-Macedon-Vic-Au-2007-01-24-9-11PM-800x600-gamma1-3-q9.jpg Robin Whittle 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How many images[edit]

People are posting a lot of good images, but at some point we're going to have too many. I personally vote for Trevor Heath's closeup photo and the one over the Andes. I'll take mine down unless someone thinks we need more Nothern Hemisphere images.

Actually, if there are too many images, you should just link to a gallery instead of putting it on the article, so it won't take up too much server space, etc. Also, if they aren't copyrighted, we should get some images from SOHO. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As I already noted above, it would be good if the photographers would upload their images to the Commons. The page for comet McNaught on the Commons is linked in the article, and is dislpays the images in a appropiate way. Regarding the images from SOHO, please note the SOHO Copyright Notice: "The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged" [2] Restriction for non-commercial use is not allowed, at least not on Commons. --Vesta 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
So does that mean that SOHO images are allowed on Wikipedia or not? Is Wikipedia non-commercial, and if so does that mean the use is strongly encoraged, and does that mean we can use the images or not on Wikipedia? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
NASA encourages use of the images for educational and noncommercial use, but Wikipedia policy is to only use images free of any restrictions. This is because Wikipedia is released under GFDL and is freely copyable, and as such should not contain copyrighted material from third parties. Some editors are strict on this policy and mark such images for deletion. I believe the images are, at least in part, a product of the US Government and as such are not copyrightable, but some editors will see the marked usage restriction and go with that.
True, but not all images on Wikipedia are free of restrictions. The SOHO does not say it is copyrighted. It says you are free to use them as long as you use them for public education and non-commercial use, and give credits to SOHO. Since you are allowed to use them for those purposes, there aren't really so many restrictions. It also doesn't say personal use is prohibited, and use on educational and non-commercial sites is strongly encouaged. People might still be allowed to use it for their own websites, as long as it is non-commercial. Also, if we can't load them onto commons, can we use them on Wikipedia? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think they can be used on Wikipedia. We'd have to make a special tag for them with something like "Non-commercial and educational use only. Any other use, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement", like what the fair-use tags say. This would allow other ESA images as well, because it's the same policy for them all. Of course, other Wikis such as Commons or the German wikipedia wouldn't allow them, but that's beyond us. I also find it highly unlikely that ESA would sue us, or anybody, for that matter. But I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.--Planetary 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that there are images for a variety of places is very interesting - true mostly in the southern hemisphere - but still from a variety of places. I suggest not trying to curb enthusiasm at this time - for some people the image taken closer to their home is more interesting than the better image taken on another continent. The gallery seems a good format and not intrusive. Perhaps rationalise when the comet is not so visible. I saw the comet last night - absolutely superb. And to think I once got up at 3 am and went 50 miles into the Central Australian desert to watch Halley's comet - no spectacular tail - barely discernable from the rest of the night sky ... --Golden Wattle talk 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the image gallery somewhat. Now in date order, plus chronological order in sense of Earth's rotation but his could perhaps be refined somewhat more. Place names disambiguated. There may be too many but there is now a sense of where the comet was seen and how it has changed over time. Note - I have removed the repetitive year links - all the pics are 2007!--Golden Wattle talk 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The [[date]], [[year]] format is there purely for the purpose of formatting the dates according to user preferences (for registered users). Without the year included this preference setting does not work, so its probably a good idea to de-link the dates as well. On another point, I'll post a request to the Help Desk for one or two external editors not involved in this article to trim and format the gallery somewhat. It is getting rather big and some of the pictures can surely be dropped. But it's safer to let someone with no vested interest in the article or the images do it, lest anyone be accused of bias. Zunaid©® 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The date preference setting does indeed appear to work without the year attached; try it and see. I would prefer to see some discussion before any radical culling of the images - there is a spread around the world and by date showing quite significant variation - there are a few which are not clear, but only a few. They only seem too many images to somebody who does not appreciate the variation demonstrated. A disinterested editor can also equal an uninterested editor and not a useful editor perhaps.--Golden Wattle talk 10:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, galleries do take up space and resources, and in the long run, most of these images should reside in the Commons. But that can wait, I guess. Xiner (talk, email) 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
SOHO Copyright policy states that permission is needed for comercial and non-educational websites. However, Wikipedia is non-commercial, and is also quite educational, given that it's an informational site, because it's an encyclopedia, so why can't we use the images anywhere? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's mostly because of the existence of forks, like answers.com and reference.com; who are commercial. But it's not so hard for them to just not use those particular images, is it? I agree in that I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't be using ESA images. --Planetary 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Yes or no: Can this be seen from the northern hemisphere - lets say New York, for instance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not any more, although it IS still visible just north of the equator. New York is way too far north, although it was visible from there a few weeks ago Modest Genius talk 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it will return to be visible in the Northern Hemisphere soon. Re: Photos ... here is a nice photo page with ephemeris and historical info. Y23 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, according to that link the declination will continue to become more southerly until at least the 8th Feb (which is as far as they are shown), at which point it is -56 degrees. Modest Genius talk 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nucleus splitting[edit]

Is there any official news on the nucleus splitting? Its not at all uncommon for it to happen to comets that pass that close to the sun and the picture above on this page and nucleus.jpg on the main article certainly suggest it has in fact split. --LiamE 15:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No reports of that on any of the sites that are following the comet's progress. Can anyone from the southern hemi take a look at the head through a telescope and confirm this?Robogun 06:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Curved tail[edit]

Could someone please explain why the tail of this comet appears to be curved? Is it just an effect of our perspective? I thought that the tail of a comet blows away from the Sun. Is it because the comet is moving very fast? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.217.173 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

It's the dust tail which remains in the orbital path (& McNaught made a tight turn). The straight tail that points away from the Sun is the ion tail. Comets can have either or both depending on its composition, closeness to the Sun, tightness of the turn angle of view & other factors. The main Comet article has more detail. Robogun 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!![edit]

Now, this is what WP is all about - common effort yields a good product, and real-time, instep with the event. Self-organisation at its finest. William R. Buckley 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it also about cramming as many images of the same thing as possible onto one page? 147.188.225.245 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this article (which I started) is now on the main page! Why is it semi-protected? We haven't really seen a lot of vandalism on this article. I guess the expansion of this article was mostly because of the current event it is. Also, it could be the brightest comet in 70 years to come within 0.15 AU of the sun and not split into pieces and not on the mainstream media. Keep up the good work! AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been on the front page of the BBC website, does that not count as mainstream media? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6251663.stm Modest Genius talk 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess that is mainstream, but it only has one picture and a few words, and I don't see it on the front page. I was just wondering if anyone has mentioned it on TV< because it usually only has the "big" news. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, understandably enough, it was on the front page at a time when the thing was visible from here ;) Plus, that's a picture gallery, it has a whole bunch of pics (but yes, very few words). But yes, point taken, although I don't tend to watch many TV news bulletins so wouldn't notice even if it was on there Modest Genius talk 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I'll be in Sao Paulo tomorrow and i'd like to know if anyone knows any good spots in the area to see the comet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.83.141 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Somewhere with a view of the sky is probably your best bet 147.188.225.245 09:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


With all the light pollution in big cities you should probably head out o ftown to see it best. Arthurian Legend 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that shouldn't be nessecary. It is still about mag. -2, and in a big city like Sao Paulo, you should still be able to see to at least mag. 1, so the comet should be visible as long as it isn't cloudy and you go outside at the right time. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Does anyone know its mass and physical size? Anthill2006

It can only be guessed, without a close-up look at the nucleus. I haven't heard any estimates at all. Oh, and sign your posts, like me.--Planetary 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Visibility in Australia[edit]

On January 22nd, around 10:00pm AUST EST (Daylight Savings Time), the Comet could be clearly seen from Werribee, Victoria (30 minutes east of Geelong - 40 minutes west of the Melbourne CBD). Looking south. Truly, truly amazing - my house mates and I were the only people in my street to actually notice it.

Blackxbellax 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not complaining, sort of[edit]

I mean in my life i have never seen a comet. It would be pretty cool if this one was fading into the northern hemisphere. If it is visible then it would be pretty cool to see it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harryjoebill (talkcontribs) 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I can relate to this. When it was "visible" here, a massive ICE STORM obscured it. Same happen to you ? Martial Law 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I did see the Hale-Bopp comet. Martial Law 04:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Uniformity in dates[edit]

On 21 January, I tried to add uniform (UK style) to the dates mentioned in the article, and they were reverted. I may have screwed something up somewhere. But something still needs to be done about the dating format, as the article pitches between US and UK stylings, which just looks sloppy. ZincOrbie 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was started with US date format so it should standardise to that. --LiamE 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
But it was an Australian astronomer (tongue in cheek - I don't really care)--Golden Wattle talk 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If the dates are wikilinked then they should render according to your personal preferences regardless of how they are entered in the article. Zunaid©® 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Still visible 25th Jan. Australia! (2 weeks)[edit]

The faint tail of the comet is/was still visible to the naked eye in evening sky. I think this is about 2 weeks ? Amazing !!!! How Fast is this comet traveling approx at the moment ???? Might be interesting to put the speed range on the main page.Yendor72 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orbit Direction?[edit]

In the image showing the comet's orbit (in green), which direction is the comet travelling? I am assuming clockwise because it had its perihelion on 12 Jan and the image shows its orbit on 14 Jan. Does anyone know for sure? Mikeeg555 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It orbits clockwise in the image, hence the southern hemisphere can see it longer than the northern. (North is up in the image.)--Geremia 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Morning Viewing?[edit]

The article claims it's visible in the mornings also. I was wondering if anyone could give a general compass bearing to look at to spot it? Evening viewing from Christchurch, New Zealand sucks at the moment due to the weather. Mornings are generally patchy though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.176.126 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Future Meteor Showers/Storms?[edit]

Will Earth cross the comet's orbit resulting in a great meteor shower? From NASA link "Comet orbital elements and diagram" it appears Earth and comet orbits intersect in late June. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.147.143 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

No see: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070122163427AA3BN32

Two things[edit]

1. Was it visible in North America 2. When will it be back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.36.231 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article title/disambiguation[edit]