Hubble sees asteroid spouting six comet-like tails

There is a conspicuous absence in the records, of asteroids with diameters of around 240 meters, as this one is supposed to have, and a rotation rate of around 2.2 hours, which is the rate at which they should begin to fly apart
by centrifugal force.

When an asteroid gets into this state, it presumably destroys itself fairly quickly. Remarkable then that we should happen upon one at the very edge of flying apart. This object is alleged to be shedding relatively small, intermittent bursts of dust, not destroying itself as a whole.
There is still no confirming evidence that P/2013 P5 is rotating with such extraordinary rapidity, nor that the 'tails' are coming from its equator, as would be the case if centrifugal force is involved. Even the idea that the 'tails' are made of dust is a supposition at this point, being based merely on the prior assumption that this object is an active asteroid. Spectroscopic observation, if possible, would be required to confirm this.
The alternative explanation, that the 'tails' are water ice subliming directly to vapor is unlikely. Objects at this distance from the Sun are very probably warm enough to have lost any ice they held long ago. There is reportedly no evidence to support the idea that a collision with another space body has exposed fresh ice to the surface, rendering it newly volatile.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Thanks for the info.

Essentially, it sounds like they are guessing at the size of this asteroid.

reply to post by Ross 54


Got any links on this idea that over 2 rotations an hour will break up an asteroid.

That seems pretty slow, and I would be interested in how they came up with that number.

An educated guess, yes. Assuming the object is an asteroid, and based on its expected ability to reflect light and its apparent brightness, the size is a reasonable conjecture. If the object is darker than expected, it could be substantially larger. If lighter, it could be smaller. Learning details of such a small object at such a great distance can be challenging.

poet1b
reply to post by Ross 54

 

Got any links on this idea that over 2 rotations an hour will break up an asteroid.

That seems pretty slow, and I would be interested in how they came up with that number.

Bear in mind that most asteroids of this size are loosely consolidated 'rubble piles'
Link:www.scilogs.eu...

reply to post by Ross 54


I would think that the break up of a asteroid that is more like a rubble pile would not create these types of jets.

It seems that there would have to be fissures opening, exposing trapped liquids or loose matter that gets quickly sucked out by the vacuum of space.

Is this "Thing" reflecting light, or emitting light?

The scientific position is that the object is reflecting, but not emitting light. A rubble pile asteroid is probably porous all the way through. It would be unlikely to hold any materials under pressure that would be blown out into space in the event of a break in the surface.
I finally managed to access the online version of the scientific article by Dr. David Jewitt, discoverer of P/2013 P5. A couple of points soon became clear.
1.) 240 meters is the estimated radius of the object, not its diameter. 480 meters would be the diameter. This larger size makes the high rate of spin necessary for centrifugal disruption even more unlikely than before. Doubling the diameter raises the energy necessary to impart this spin eightfold.
2.) Variations in brightness of the object, which could have given its period of rotation were looked for repeatedly, but not found. If such variations were present, they should have been detectable. The explanations offered for the lack of systematic variations in brightness are:
a.) The spin axis of the object pointed directly, or almost directly at Earth. The same part of the object is always presented to our view, regardless of rotation.
b.) The period of rotation is long in comparison to the length of time the Hubble Space Telescope can observe the object in one continuous session-- about 40 minutes. Just how much longer the rotation period would have to be, in order to render it undetectable isn't made clear. I expect there will be considerable astronomical interest in making much longer observation runs with ground-based telescopes, in an effort to define a rotation period for the object.
Link to pdf of Dr.Jewitt's paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.1483v1.pdf

Ross 54
When an asteroid gets into this state, it presumably destroys itself fairly quickly. Remarkable then that we should happen upon one at the very edge of flying apart. This object is alleged to be shedding relatively small, intermittent bursts of dust, not destroying itself as a whole.

Wouldn't it loose rotational energy as it sheds the dust? If so, it would spin slower and therefore shed less. Unless something keeps accelerating the spin.

So, if this is a rubble pile asteroid, spun by solar wind, it could keep shedding (slowly) for a relatively long time.

Subnatural

Ross 54
When an asteroid gets into this state, it presumably destroys itself fairly quickly. Remarkable then that we should happen upon one at the very edge of flying apart. This object is alleged to be shedding relatively small, intermittent bursts of dust, not destroying itself as a whole.

Wouldn't it loose rotational energy as it sheds the dust? If so, it would spin slower and therefore shed less. Unless something keeps accelerating the spin.

So, if this is a rubble pile asteroid, spun by solar wind, it could keep shedding (slowly) for a relatively long time.

Yes, the object would slow its rotation slightly if it lost some mass via intermittent dust ejections. In the times between these, the Solar wind and the re-radiation of some of the Sun's heat from the object would spin it up again, provided it was not spherical in shape, and in a shorter time than before, since the reduced mass of the object has less inertia . The long term trend would apparently be a continuing increase in rotational speed.

Having written that, I'm not yet wholly satisfied that this is what is happening in the case of P/2013 P5. The odds seem rather long that its axis of rotation would just happen to point at Earth, eliminating rotational brightness variations. So, too, that the rotation period could be long enough to be missed by the Hubble observations, and yet still short enough to permit centrifugal disruption of the surface.

InverseLookingGlass

Astronomers must be giddy as all be right now.

LOL. I believe sick to the stomach is a better bet. That's the feeling you get when a "standard" scientific model breaks.

I believe electric plasma discharge is the leading hypothesis for these "streamers" that magically hold together for impossibly long distances. These features rotate with the body? Hm dust jets can't do that under the influence of gravity alone. Solar wind? That's some really complex wind.

Maybe someone will get the bright idea to observe for x-rays. It would indeed be odd to see x-rays coming from an asteroid wouldn't it?

Oh for crying out loud. Always with the "ZOMG!!! Something I personally don't understand! It MUST PROVE that everything is a lie!" --facepalm--

reply to post by Ross 54

The scientific position is that the object is reflecting, but not emitting light.

Okay, but it is my impression upon viewing this "Thing", well, it just looks like its emitting light in several rays, that highlight dust and gasses.

Im thinking everyone knows that if this "Thing" is emitting light, the ball game changes drastically.

More photos, get us some live video, please........

Several photos of the object at the Hubble Space Telescope site. All can be viewed at several different magnifications. Just click on the thumbnail sized images, and select the size you want to view. Link:hubblesite.org...

So near the top of The Druge Report website, there's the

byline "Scientists baffled by the lack of sunspots..." (link to Online WSJ here)

In effect - ISON may be interacting in an electromagnetic fashion with the inner planets, then the sun as it nears perihelion around 12.26, as said in the intro.

The Smithsonian CFA scientist notes that the sun's N-S magnetic poles are currently in the same polarity! and the total magnetic moment of the sun is the weakest seen by "any living scientist." Which, they add, is just fine.

I'm not fine with the solar systems largest mass/gravitational field object being the same polarity - as it has been apparently for about a year. Is ISON highly charged enough to be holding the sun's expected solar maximum pole shift (normally every 11-12 years) from happening, and if so - will that affect earth's own weakened and constantly shifting magnetic moment??

All Seeing Eye

The scientific position is that the object is reflecting, but not emitting light.

Okay, but it is my impression upon viewing this "Thing", well, it just looks like its emitting light in several rays, that highlight dust and gasses.

Im thinking everyone knows that if this "Thing" is emitting light, the ball game changes drastically.

Yeah, that would be very strange and interesting.

So, you are saying that there is a cloud of dust and gas around it. And we are seeing beams of light in this cloud, coming from the nucleus? But wouldn't the cloud be illuminated by the sun as well?

Subnatural

All Seeing Eye

The scientific position is that the object is reflecting, but not emitting light.

Okay, but it is my impression upon viewing this "Thing", well, it just looks like its emitting light in several rays, that highlight dust and gasses.

Im thinking everyone knows that if this "Thing" is emitting light, the ball game changes drastically.

Yeah, that would be very strange and interesting.

So, you are saying that there is a cloud of dust and gas around it. And we are seeing beams of light in this cloud, coming from the nucleus? But wouldn't the cloud be illuminated by the sun as well?

Actually, I'm not. The "Scientists" already said there is no dust cloud around it, which means, there has been no impact.

If I'm not mistaken, the Sun is behind this thing, so it would be interesting how it could light up the side we are seeing, or at least one side of it. I need clarification on that.

The nature of these "Beams" is rather odd, thin at the source, and wider further away. Though you would expect this pattern from a pressurized venting, but from 6 separate sources?

Another oddity is that these beams are rotating along with the object. You would think they would spiral away as the object turns, if they were dust /gas combination. Beams of light on the other hand, would rotate from the emitting source and keep there relative positions.

If it's been in deep space for 3BY, likely it has a lot of light volatiles intact. jmo.

reply to post by drphilxr


Is there any evidence of ISON being electrically charged and interacting with other Solar System bodies, or is that just an assumption based on the EU theory? I haven't seen any data or reports showing ISON's electric charge or interaction (apart from its ion tail reacting to the Sun).

wildespace
Is there any evidence of ISON being electrically charged and interacting with other Solar System bodies...

"Is there any evidence for..." is always answered by "yes". For anything you want.
You just have to look hard enough and ignore everything else.

Any outragiously stupid theory you can think of can always have evidence found for it.

Actually, the Sun, Earth, and P/2013 P5 were almost in a straight line when the Hubble images were taken. The Sun was shining directly onto our view of the mysterious object, from a point nearly behind us. The Sun was not shining through the object from behind it. The linked NASA orbit diagram helps explain this. You can adjust the current date back to Sept. 10th and 23rd. ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...