Jump to content

Talk:Comet Kohoutek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

Does the comet still exist, or did it disintegrate as it approached the sun?

  • Kohoutek still exists, and is now in the outer solar system (or perhaps farther, I am not sure) out. Scientists believe the comet has an approximately 75,000 year orbital period, so we won't be seeing it again in our lifetimes.

Father Rob Lyons 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

How do you pronounce it? Ko-how-tek? Ko-hoo-tek? Someone who knows, add a pronunciation guide plz. Happywaffle (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Or cow - how - teek[reply]

"ko-HOOT-ik". In addition to being the discovering astronomer's surname, the word 'kohoutek' means a juvenile male chicken, i.e., a 'little rooster'. in several Central- and Eastern-European languages. (Kohut ["ko-HOOT"] = adult rooster; suffix "ek" makes it diminutive.) All that, plus $5, will get you a crappy cup of coffee at Starbucks. Manburger 486 (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perihelion date

[edit]

The image accompanying this article indicates the perihelion date as the 27th rather than the 26th of December 1973. Given the image is taken from NASA, is the date in the article a typo?


Please take note: there's an D.J.Batzer's article in Malaysia's Star on 6 Feb 2006 about the mystery of Kahoutek comet. Wow! ^-^

che 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


According to NASA, Comet Kohoutek reached perihelion on December 28, 1973. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-404/ch4.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnySullivan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is Comet Kohoutek a period comet?

[edit]

Wikipedia says

Comet Kohoutek is a long period comet. At its apparition on 1973 it has a hyperbolic trajectory (e > 1) due to gravitational perturbations from giant planets. But actualy it have a long period, it previous apparition was about 150,000 years ago, and it next apparition will be in about 75,000 years.

If a Comet Kohoutek has a hyperbolic trajectory then how will it return? Mschribr (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All comets belong to our Solar system, and far beyond from Sun they moving around the Sun with certain period. So, they eccentricities cannot be larger than 1. But sometimes Giant planets affects they motions, and they move to the inner Solar System. Sometimes such comets, when they in the inner solar system, have e>1. "Original" 1/a parameter have ALWAYS positive value, and "future" 1/a parameters usually have positive value, too. Our Solar System is not a static system. It is dynamic N-body gravitational system. Orbital parameters of all objects changes continuously. — Chesnok (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it simple, when the comet was close to Sun, inside the orbit of Jupiter, it moved along a hyperbola. However beyound the orbit of Jupiter it came under the gravitational influence of the pair Sun+Jupiter, which has a higher mass than just Sun alone. This means that far from the Sun comet's trajectory became elliptical. Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is a in 1/a? Is it the semi-major axis? Why can’t a comet exit the solar system because its eccentricity is big? Mschribr (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a is a semi-major axis. 1/a is a reverse semi-major axis—it is often used for convinience instead of a. Eccentricity exceeded 1 only in the inner solar system, when the comet move under the influence of Sun only. In the outer solar system Jupiter came into the game and the orbit became elliptical. Strictly speeking the orbit of this comet was neither elliptical nor hyperbolic—it was more complicated. However in diffrerent parts of the Solar System it may be approximated by either ellipse or hyperbola. Ruslik (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the comet be from outside the solar system and is passing through our star system? Can we measure the current eccentricity of the comet? Mschribr (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the comet is not observable—it is too far from the Sun. Ruslik (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the statement “Comet Kohoutek is a long period comet” is factual. This is a theory. The wikipedia should say currently the comet is not observable because it is too far from the Sun. The current theory is Comet Kohoutek is a long period comet, was previously here 150,000 years ago and will return in 75,000 years. Mschribr (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The heliocentric orbit becomes bound to the Sun by 1978. -- Kheider (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Voyager 1 also return?

[edit]

If comets with e>1 change to long period comets then what about the Voyager 1 spacecraft? Voyager 1 has an e>1 will it also become less than 1 and return to the sun? Mschribr (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager is currently moving far from known planets and therefore its eccentricity, which significantly exceeds unity (e>1), is not going to change. Voyager, hence, is going to leave Solar System. Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the distance and eccentricity of Kohoutek when it was last observed? Mschribr (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Czech Wikipedia, comet C/1973 E1 (Kohoutek) was last observed on April 29, 1974. At that date eccentricity was 1.0000086 and heliocentric distance was 2.5649707 AU (calculated using JPL HORIZONS). However, on 1990-01-01 simulated eccentricity was 0.9999391 < 1.0 — Chesnok (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there no observation after April 29, 1974 only 4 months after perihelion? There was an observation over 9 months before perihelion. Mschribr (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because since April the comet was in conjunction with Sun. — Chesnok (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observe comet Kohoutek at 60 AU

[edit]

Planets around stars 130 light years away have been observed. Can we observe comet Kohoutek 60 AU away? Mschribr (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most exo-planets have not been directly observed. The motion they induce on there host stars have been measured. Halley's comet at 28AU was difficult enough to detect. -- Kheider (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Burl Ives

[edit]

Folk singer Burl Ives recorded a preposterous song about the comet. It's listed in his article as: "The Tail of the Comet Kohoutek / A Very Fine Lady (1974, 7 in., 45 rpm, MCA 40175)" I saw him perform it on The Tonight Show (or one of the similar competing shows). In the song, he imagines himself the comet, and the lyrics went something like "I'd fly higher and higher, with my rear end on fire . . . ," and of how the kids would be awaiting his return in thousands of years. Mercifully forgotten . . . until now. WHPratt (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd

[edit]

How could Pink Floyd have recorded an album celebrating Comet Kohoutek in February 1972 when the comet was discovered in March 1973? Bayowolf (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

[edit]

Mentioned in passing in S6E14 "Bart's Comet". 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:FC44:48D:2670:3DC7 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction =

[edit]

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/app.f.htm :

Kohoutek was also unique in being apparently a "new" comet, one that had never before passed the sun. This at least was offered as an explanation for its considerably diminished brightness after perihelion.

In other words, it wasn't bright because it hadn't passed the sun before.

But this article claims that it was thought that it would be bright because it hadn't passed the sun, with the implication that it wasn't bright because it had passed the sun before.

There is no way to reconcile this. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if this is it's first visit, then it can't have also appeared about 150,000 years ago. 69.165.226.92 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comet Kohoutek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aphelion to 4 to 5 million miles??

[edit]

I thought the aphelion for Kowoutek supposed to be atleast many hundred astronomical units, or possibly it had a hyperbolic orbit, how could the aphelion ever be closer to the sun than Mercury? Here's the passage:"Maran believed that the comet initially had a perihelion farther out than the orbit of Jupiter until it was gravitationally perturbed by a passing star, lowering its perihelion to within the orbit of Mercury and its aphelion to 4–5 million mi (6–8 million km) from the Sun; additional gravitational interactions between the comet and the planets would have shortened the comet's orbital period further to about 75,000 years." Is this an error?Rich (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-computed the orbital solutions for epochs 1600 and 2500 using JPL Horizons. The orbital period would have been millions of years inbound and around 80k years outbound. -- Kheider (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So aphelion was a typo for orbital period, and 4-5 million mi was meant to be 4-5 million years.Rich (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Comet Kohoutek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Images all good
" The comet was Kohoutek's second discovery of 1973; the first..." I take it this was his second ~comet~ of the year; if so any further details on the first comet?

The first comet discovered by Kohoutek that year was one of little significance, particularly compared to his second discovery; it was only observed in 1973. I have added a brief note next to that sentence and changed the wording to specifically refer to the comet as being Kohoutek's second comet discovery of 1973. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"Analyses of Kohoutek have provided different assessments of the scale of the comet's release of dust and gas, with some suggesting that Kohoutek is relatively dust-rich (and consequently gas-poor) and others suggesting that the comet is relatively dust-poor (and consequently gas-rich)." What follows in the paragraph is that both were proven right in time? But then..."However, later photometric analyses indicated that Kohoutek was instead a gassy comet with a high gas-to-dust ratio emblematic of comets entering the inner Solar System for the first time, suggesting a nucleus rich in volatiles and relatively depleted in refractory substances." This might indicate that the dust-rich theorists were wrong, but there was a transition that would support both theories. Perhaps all that is needed is to remove "However" from the lower paragraph.

In reading through the sources when expanding the article, I was also confused by the presence of sources that chalked up various findings as confirmations of both the comet being gas-rich or the comet being dust-rich, perhaps depending on whatever stance the authors of those sources previously supported. Broadly, it seems that the comet challenged some of the assumptions that a "gas-rich" or "dust-rich" comet entailed. The more recent literature generally stated that Kohoutek was moreso a gas-rich comet, but I was not able to find a reliable source that explicitly summarized the Kohoutek literature in that manner. For now, I have removed the "however", as suggested. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"... although not observable from the Earth's surface..." Wouldn't the lumosity increase be registered by the naked eye, just as with the comet itself?

Changed the phrasing to "...although not clearly observable..." The idea here was that the comet at its brightest was too close to the Sun to be seen clearly from Earth due to the brightness of the Sun and the sky; only astronauts were able to clearly see the comet during that time, free from the visual effects of the Earth's atmosphere. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"...the [coma] is getting qutoe large and bright, and the tail, all we can see is a fan behind it. And we're beginning to see some reds and some yellows in it." Typo or [sic] in the Carr excerpt

Fixed; was not a [sic]. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I understand that the dirty snowball conception has been proven correct, but what of the subsidiary theory that "Kohoutek belonged to a subset of comets containing a non-volatile dust mantle around an icy volatile core"...has there been further determination with later comets/technology? If a reader wants to know the advancement of the snowball theory they can click on that link, but no such link for the dust layer theory

I was not able to find a recent reliable source passing judgement on the specific dust mantle model proposed by Mendis and Brin (1977). At best, the scientific literature appears to point to that model as being a part of models incorporating renewed understanding of comet behavior, such as in Szego (2001) or Prialnik (2002) However, I've added a link to the "Icy dirtball" section of the comet nucleus article, given that description refers to the idea of at least some comets having dusty mantles. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"Kohoutek was in its time the most publicized comet aside from Halley's Comet." Would this be more accurate if read: "Most publicized until Halley's Comet"?

While the most recent apparition of Halley's Comet occurred in 1986, its previous apparitions and relatively frequent return to the inner Solar System made it a very well-known comet. That sentence cites a paper published in 1974 that describes Comet Kohoutek has having "undoubtedly received more publicity than any other except for P/Halley". TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


It might be worthwhile to put the Skylab 3 mission patch in this area someplace

Added. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The cultural reception section is very fascinating. Great article, not much needed to be changed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Comet Kohoutek
Comet Kohoutek

Improved to Good Article status by TheAustinMan (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 10:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I also smell a potential April's Fools hook here:
Let me know what you think of that :) –LordPickleII (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent promotion to Good Article verified. QPQ done. Although DYK sourcing rules exceed GA rules, this is thoroughly sourced, as one would expect for a GA. The GA review seems to have been a little superficial, and I don't see any evidence of checks against improper copying, but Earwig found only properly marked direct quotes, proper noun phrases, and set phrases, nothing problematic. The picture is still pretty at thumbnail size and properly licensed. I don't think ALT1 is counterfactual or surprising enough to be an April Fool hook, so let's go with either that or ALT0 as a normal hook (both are ok for that purpose). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ako nalang sana

[edit]

She said she said she's from hawai do you know how to speak bisaya? 😁

49.149.68.54 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Band Name Reference

[edit]

In the second to last paragraph under “Cultural Impact”, one of the musical artists listed as influenced by the comet is Weather Report Girl. I believe this may be a mistake, and should be just Weather Report, who released the album and title track “Mysterious Traveler”, which is known to be a reference to Kohoutech. Wildweilder (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comet_Kohoutek&oldid=1249710718"