From ludmilla@astro.umd.edu Wed Nov 9 11:24:17 2005 X-Original-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@astro.umd.edu Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:24:17 -0500 (EST) From: Ludmilla Kolokolova To: Anne Raugh Subject: Re: Another Question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100393 Anne, >Why is comet 144P/Kushida (1994 A1) listed as both 144P/Kushida and on a >separate line as P/1994 A1 (Kushida) with different results? This is definitely the same comet and in the book Coemts 2 the data for both "Kushida" are the same. Why the authors listed it twice is a mistery, but they did. Probably, Mike knows. I will ask him. >Comet 129P is Shoemaker-Levy 3, but in this file 129P is called IRAS. >There >is a comet 126P/IRAS. I can find no known association of "IRAS" with >"Shoemaker-Levy 3". Which comet is meant by "129P/IRAS" in this file? Comet 126P is IRAS, comet 129P is Shoumaker -Levy 3 >Comet P/LONEOS 4 (2001 OG108) is listed in both this file and the "dead" >file. Is there some explanation for why it is considered both a live >comet >and a dead one? In the book it is only in "live" table and has a comment that it was discovered as an asteroid but then reclassified as a comet. Probably, Mike put it also in the dead comet table based on this fact. If I could fins a table in the nuclear properties article that looked >like this one, I would have looked! This is Table 2 in the book. "*" refers to the footnote "The two period to the SAM and LAM rotations". >Which is why I need to know the significance of the grouping, because if >there isn't any significance to the grouping, the table should be sorted. Now I see - Munghee combined two tables in one. First table (corrersponds to Table 1 in the book )is for ecliptic comets, then second tabel (that starts with 1P/HAlley is for isotropic comets. We can discuss how to handle it. Ludmilla ============================================================================== Ludmilla Kolokolova Planetary Data System Group Department of Astronomy Rm. 2337, Computer and Space Science Bldg. University of Maryland College Park, MD, 20742 Tel. (301) - 405 - 1539 Fax. (301) - 405 - 3538 ============================================================================== From raugh@astro.umd.edu Wed Nov 9 12:02:01 2005 X-Original-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@astro.umd.edu To: raugh@astro.umd.edu, ludmilla@astro.umd.edu Subject: Re: Another Question Cc: ma@astro.umd.edu X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:59:45 -0500 (EST) From: raugh@astro.umd.edu (Anne Raugh) Content-Length: 2790 X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100395 > >Why is comet 144P/Kushida (1994 A1) listed as both 144P/Kushida and on a > >separate line as P/1994 A1 (Kushida) with different results? > > This is definitely the same comet and in the book Coemts 2 the data for > both "Kushida" are the same. Why the authors listed it twice is a mistery, > but they did. Probably, Mike knows. I will ask him. Well, it's not quite the same. One line has the value in parentheses and preceeded by a dash. I have no idea what the dash/parentheses mean, yet. It's not listed under either ID in the prose descriptions. > >Comet 129P is Shoemaker-Levy 3, but in this file 129P is called IRAS. > >There > >is a comet 126P/IRAS. I can find no known association of "IRAS" with > >"Shoemaker-Levy 3". Which comet is meant by "129P/IRAS" in this file? > > Comet 126P is IRAS, comet 129P is Shoumaker -Levy 3 Which still leaves unanswered the question "How did typos in comet names get into this file?"... > >Comet P/LONEOS 4 (2001 OG108) is listed in both this file and the "dead" > >file. Is there some explanation for why it is considered both a live > >comet > >and a dead one? > > In the book it is only in "live" table and has a comment that it was > discovered as an asteroid but then reclassified as a comet. Probably, Mike > put it also in the dead comet table based on this fact. Mike created the "dead" table?!? > Munghee got Excel file and I expected that she just converted it to the > text file. But probably she retyped it. If she retyped it then it needs to be proofed against the published table, assuming the published table is more likely to be correct. Actually, given the number of typos in the comet names, it needs to be proofed in any event. That may be the breaking point. There are so many things that need to be reformatted, looked up, explained, checked and fixed in these files that I really don't think there's any chance they'll be done by Friday, especially if I have to prep Kiselev's data and go deal with the EN survey garbage by Friday as well. > >Which is why I need to know the significance of the grouping, because if > >there isn't any significance to the grouping, the table should be sorted. > > Now I see - Munghee combined two tables in one. First table (corrersponds > to Table 1 in the book )is for ecliptic comets, then second tabel (that > starts with 1P/HAlley is for isotropic comets. We can discuss how to > handle it. So I discovered. There's also a rather significant piece of information (comet class) that was omitted when those two tables were combined that needs to be added back in. Plus I see there are some footnotes that should not be ignored, and I'm beginning to wonder if we need to include the specific references from the descriptive section of the paper. -A. From ma@astro.umd.edu Wed Nov 9 12:34:34 2005 X-Original-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@astro.umd.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ma@halley.astro.umd.edu Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:34:32 -0500 To: Ludmilla Kolokolova , Mike A'Hearn From: Mike A'Hearn Subject: Re: Questions about coemt nuclei Cc: Anne Raugh X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100397 Ludmilla and Anne, At 11:38 AM -0500 9 11 2005, Ludmilla Kolokolova wrote: >Mike, > >Anne and me got some questions related to the Comet Nuclei data. > >1. Comet 144P/Kushida is listed in Lamy's Table 1 twice, as 144P and >as P/1994 with the same characteristics. Do you know what was the >reason to do this? Should we leave it only as 144P? I presume that it appears twice due to observations at the two different apparitions, 1994 A1 and 2000 O2. I don't recall whether the table lists different apparitions separately, but in any case it is 144P at both apparitions and the same physical body at both apparitions. Maybe the 1994 results were published before the comet got its periodic number so the table is just out of date in that regard. > >2. Comet C/2001 LONEOS was listed by Lamy only as active comet, >whereas in the Excel file that we received from you it is also in >the extinct comet table (looks like added later since it is the last >object there). I know that the comet was discovered as asteroid but >later reclassified to a comet. Should we keep it in "alive comets" >or "dead comets" file or in both ? I do not recall why I would have copied it into the dead comets portion of the excel spreadsheet. I suggest leaving it only as Lamy et al. had it. Mike > >Thank you. > >Ludmilla >============================================================================== >Ludmilla Kolokolova >Planetary Data System Group >Department of Astronomy >Rm. 2337, Computer and Space Science Bldg. >University of Maryland >College Park, MD, 20742 >Tel. (301) - 405 - 1539 >Fax. (301) - 405 - 3538 >============================================================================== -- Michael F. A'Hearn Tel: 301 405 6076 Department of Astronomy FAX: 301 405 3538 University of Maryland College Park MD 20742-2421 From ludmilla@astro.umd.edu Wed Nov 9 12:36:24 2005 X-Original-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@astro.umd.edu Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:36:21 -0500 (EST) From: Ludmilla Kolokolova To: Anne Raugh Cc: ma@astro.umd.edu Subject: Re: Another Question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100398 > Well, it's not quite the same. One line has the value in parentheses and > preceeded by a dash. I have no idea what the dash/parentheses mean, yet. > It's not listed under either ID in the prose descriptions. Table 1 indicates two values: the new one is listed second and it is in brackets, the old one is first and if it is missed then there is the dash. So, this means that for comet 144P we have old value that is equal to the new one but why they listed in separate lines I have no idea. > If she retyped it then it needs to be proofed against the published table, > assuming the published table is more likely to be correct. Actually, given > the number of typos in the comet names, it needs to be proofed in any event. Well, every time when I asked her why it took so long time she answered because she was proofing it carefully... > That may be the breaking point. There are so many things that need to be > reformatted, looked up, explained, checked and fixed in these files that I > really don't think there's any chance they'll be done by Friday, especially > if I have to prep Kiselev's data and go deal with the EN survey garbage by > Friday as well. Anne, I can take care of it (at least of the data files) tomorrow, after I prepare and submit the Annual report. > So I discovered. There's also a rather significant piece of information > (comet class) that was omitted when those two tables were combined that needs > to be added back in. Plus I see there are some footnotes that should not be > ignored, and I'm beginning to wonder if we need to include the specific > references from the descriptive section of the paper. The easiest way is to break this file in two, as it was done in the book. The footnotes are usually related to a single comet, so, I think, they can be just added to the name of the comet, e.g. "S4 LINEAR before the breakup". Ludmilla From ludmilla@astro.umd.edu Tue Nov 15 13:56:59 2005 X-Original-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@astro.umd.edu Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:56:58 -0500 (EST) From: Ludmilla Kolokolova To: Anne Raugh Cc: indramh@astro.umd.edu, ma@astro.umd.edu Subject: Re: Dead comets table MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 102057 > Our file contains the two as-yet unexplained extra columns, "rifp" and > "pV". Mike's file has two additional columns "r if p" that means radius determined from the value of albedo (see the footnote + to Table 7) and the albedo itself that was used to find the radius (it is the same as the albedo in the main albedo column). > Published table does not contain lines for C/LONEOS 4 and (2201) Oljato. We talked about LONEOS that it was discovered as asteroid and then upgraded to a comet. Objato is an asteroid for which some activity was detected. I think, they both deserve to be in the dead comet file. If you have a comment column, something like "active asteroid" can be put there. > Published table has 1996 PW and 2000 AB229 classed as "NIC(ERC)", ours lists > them as "NIC(HTC)". Should be ERC > Published table has pv of (2101) Adonis and (2212) Hephaistos listed as "?", > a notation for which I have yet to find an explanation. Our table leaves > the column blank (but the published table has a different notation, > apparently, for unmeasured values). In Mike's Excel file these two shown as if their albedo has not been measured. > So the first big question is, should the table in our data set look like the > published table? If not, the next big questions is, why the extra columns? > And if the published table is not what we're after, what can I proof this > table against? As I understand, these two columns were produces by Mike for his own scientific purposes. We don't need them, in the file. From ma@astro.umd.edu Fri Nov 18 03:53:24 2005 X-Original-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@icarus.astro.umd.edu Delivered-To: raugh@astro.umd.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ma@halley.astro.umd.edu Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 03:53:27 -0500 To: Ludmilla Kolokolova , Anne Raugh From: Mike A'Hearn Subject: Re: Dead comets table Cc: indramh@astro.umd.edu, ma@astro.umd.edu X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 102943 I personally am skeptical that Oljato is a dead comet, but there are many indications that it is unusual in some way, including some possible "activity", so it is reasonable to include it, as Ludmilla suggests, in the 'dead comets' file. As Ludmilla says, my excel file probably has extra columns that I put in for my own use to calculate things I was interested in. Those extra columns do not belong in the official data product for PDS unless I get to go over them very carefully. Mike At 1:56 PM -0500 15 11 2005, Ludmilla Kolokolova wrote: >> Our file contains the two as-yet unexplained extra columns, "rifp" and "pV". > >Mike's file has two additional columns "r if p" that means radius >determined from the value of albedo (see the footnote + to Table 7) >and the albedo itself that was used to find the radius (it is the >same as the albedo in the main albedo column). > >> Published table does not contain lines for C/LONEOS 4 and (2201) Oljato. > >We talked about LONEOS that it was discovered as asteroid and then >upgraded to a comet. Objato is an asteroid for which some activity >was detected. I think, they both deserve to be in the dead comet >file. If you have a comment column, something like "active asteroid" >can be put there. > >> Published table has 1996 PW and 2000 AB229 classed as "NIC(ERC)", ours lists >> them as "NIC(HTC)". > >Should be ERC > >> Published table has pv of (2101) Adonis and (2212) Hephaistos listed as "?", >> a notation for which I have yet to find an explanation. Our table leaves >> the column blank (but the published table has a different notation, >> apparently, for unmeasured values). > >In Mike's Excel file these two shown as if their albedo has not been measured. > >>So the first big question is, should the table in our data set look like the >>published table? If not, the next big questions is, why the extra columns? >>And if the published table is not what we're after, what can I proof this >>table against? > >As I understand, these two columns were produces by Mike for his >own scientific purposes. We don't need them, in the file. -- Michael F. A'Hearn Tel: 301 405 6076 Department of Astronomy FAX: 301 405 3538 University of Maryland College Park MD 20742-2421