| |
|
Article: <5fagq3$jms@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: IN SYMPATHY to the Hale-Bopp Cooperative
Date: 2 Mar 1997 00:14:59 GMT
In article <5f7hi8$ept@news.Hawaii.Edu> David Tholen
writes:
>> Chiron the asteroid was discovered when it had no coma
>> from volatiles, so it was BIG ENOUGH TO BE REFLECTING
>> SUNLIGHT, right? Thus the asteroid designation. How
>> big is Chiron estimated to be, and how does this compare
to
>> the dirty snowball that Hale-Bopp is being called?
>
> They could be comparable. The size for Hale-Bopp isn't well
> known.
> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Oh come now! We've had the supposed size of Hale-Bopp tossed
around during the early days to support the reason for its
behavior during 1995 and appearance on a 1993 image of
McNaught’s. None of this was believable unless the mythical
Hale-Bopp, which in those days was a nova which was being pointed
to, was HUGE. Now that all those rotating pinwheels and bright
chunks of matter separating from the indeterminate head of this
supposed comet have STOPPED, all chatter about its huge size has
ceased.
Not that much time has passed, David, for the public to have
forgotten. Give us some statistics, some quoted numbers from the
IAU or NASA or JPL, regarding the speculation on Hale-Bopp's
size, please do! Or is the public supposed to forget, at this
time, and just dutifully watch the moving pictures that JPL has
prepared.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])