• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

, USA Draft version August 18, 2020 Typeset using LATEX modern style in AASTeX62 The visual lightcurve of comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) from 1995 - 1999 M. Womack,1, 2 O. Curtis,3 D.A. Rabson,4, 5 O. Harrington Pinto,2 K. Wierzchos,6 S. Cruz Gonzalez,4 G. Sarid,7 C. Mentzer,8 N. Lastra,9 N. Pichette,10 N. Ruffini,11 T. Cox,4 I. Rivera,2 A. Micciche,4 C. Jackson,4 A. Homich,12 A. Tollison,12 S. Reed,12 J. Zilka,12 B. Henning,12 M. Spinar,12 S. Rosslyn Escoto,13 T. Erdahl,12 Marcel P. Goldschen-Ohm,14 and W.T. Uhl15, 16 1Florida Space Institute, University of Central Florida, Orlando FL USA 2Department of Physics, University of Central Florida 3Institute for Astrophysical Research, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA 4Department of Physics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA 5National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA 6Catalina Sky Survey, Lunar and Planetary Lab, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 7SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA 8Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 9Department of Physics and Astronomy, Bowling Green State University, OH 10Department of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 11Monash University, Australia 12St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN 56301, USA 13Instituto de Astronomia, Universidad Nactional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico 14Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX 15Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 16Dialectic Capital Management, Rowayton, CT 06853 ABSTRACT The long-term brightness evolution of the great comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp) pre- sented a remarkable opportunity to study the behavior of its coma over four years. We used approximately 2200 total visual magnitudes published in the International Comet Quarterly taken from 17 observers during the period of 1995 July - 1999 September to create a secular lightcurve. In order to account for observer differences, arXiv:2008.06761v1 [astro-ph.EP] 15 Aug 2020 we present a novel algorithm to reduce scatter and increase precision in a lightcurve compiled from many sources. It is implemented in a publicly available code, IC- QSPLITTER. This code addresses the differences among observers by using a self- consistent statistical approach, leading to a sharper lightcurve, and improving the precision of the measured slopes. To first order, the comet’s lightcurve approximately follows a r−4 response for both pre- and post-perihelion distances. Interestingly, the pre-perihelion data are better fit with a fifth-order polynomial with inflection points Corresponding author: M. Womack [email protected] 2 at 4.0, 2.6, 2.1 and 1.1 au. We analyze these specific regions and find that they are associated with physical phenomena in the comet’s evolution. The first change in slope at 4 au coincides with the development of multiple jets in the inner coma, and the second change in slope at 2.6 au may coincide with the onset of vigorous sublimation of water ice from the nucleus. Outbursts may have occurred a few days before perihelion and at ∼ 2.2 and 7.4 au post-perihelion. Contrary to other re- ports, the lightcurve shows no evidence for the comet having been in outburst at discovery. Afρ values derived from the visual lightcurve data are consistent with a r−1:5 dependence on heliocentric distance, which is similar in shape to those derived from spectroscopy and narrow-band photometry. We present correlation equations for visual magnitudes and CO and H2O production rates, which are consistent with the pre-perihelion visual magnitudes increasing almost entirely due to CO outgassing until a heliocentric distance of about 2.6 - 3.0 au. This is where water production significantly increased. We also present two correlation equations that should prove highly useful for observation planning and data analysis, and can be generalized to be applicable to other comets. Keywords: comets, long period comets, comae, coma dust, astrostatistics, visual ob- servation, light curves 1. INTRODUCTION Comet nuclei are among the best-preserved icy-rocky remnants from the solar system’s formation. Far from the Sun, when comets are inactive, the heliocentric dependence of their bare nuclei’s brightness will follow an r−2 response due to the reflection of sunlight off the surface, assuming a constant phase angle, θ, surface area and albedo (Fig.1). Figure 1. A comet’s geocentric distance, ∆, and phase angle, θ; can both affect its apparent brightness. When comets get close enough to the Sun, the ices incorporated in the nucleus sub- limate and generate comae of gas and dust. Once they become active, the heliocentric dependence of their brightness changes due to a variety of parameters about which 3 we know very little, including dust particle size distribution, relative contributions of gas and dust, and possibly other sources of energy (Fulle 2004). Coma brightness may change when the mass loss rate changes, or large particles or grains in the coma fragment into smaller particles without changing the actual mass loss rate. More- over, the nucleus’s spin pole orientation will affect a comet’s heating from the Sun (Whipple 1980). Over human history, most reports of comets are from visual observations of their comae, including some reports of comet 1P/Halley ∼ 800 hundred years ago, e.g., Choi et al.(2018). Estimates of a comet’s visual magnitude are often used to assess its level of activity. For comets with high amounts of dust, lightcurves can also provide useful information about the bulk behavior of the dust coma, which when coupled with more rigorously derived values of the dust, and images from infrared, will provide observational constraints for nucleus composition models. Changes in slope may pinpoint a significant transition in the comet nucleus’s processing, such as the initiation of distant activity, ramp up of water-ice sublimation, breakup event or outbursts (Meech & Svoren 2004). One of the most continuous datasets on any comet was the visual secular lightcurve of Halley’s coma during its 1986 perihelion compiled from thousands of apparent magnitudes and corrected for geocentric distance of the comet (Green & Morris 1987). The lightcurve showed many significant changes in slope, peaked at ∼ 60 days past perihelion, and continued brighter post-perihelion. A similar opportunity arose with the “great” comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp), be- cause it was exceptionally bright upon its discovery at ∼ 7 au and easily observed for ∼ 18 months with the naked eye, and much longer with binoculars and small tele- scopes. From 1995 - 1999, dozens of observers dedicated nearly every clear night to recording the visual magnitude of Hale-Bopp and submitted brightness estimates to the International Comet Quarterly (ICQ)1 to make them available for further analysis by others. From the ∼ 15,000 magnitudes of Hale-Bopp archived with the ICQ, we studied a subset of 2,240 magnitudes from 17 highly experienced observers. We then created a final lightcurve using a reduced number of 785 magnitudes from 13 observers. In this paper we describe our procedures for removing points, correcting for geocentric distance and phase angle, and our new self-consistent statistical approach for combin- ing different observers, and its efficacy. This reduction process increases the accuracy and precision of a comet lightcurve. We present this algorithm through the analysis of the comet Hale-Bopp, which was the subject of the largest observational campaign in history. We also highlight some of the major features and implications of the refined lightcurve. We present our open source software package ICQSplitter (Curtis et al. 2020), which was used to develop 1 http://www.icq.eps.harvard.edu/ 4 these results and is discussed in Appendix1. This serves as the companion paper to our archive submission with the NASA Planetary Data Systems Small Bodies Node archive (Womack et al. 2018). 2. OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTIONS 2.1. Pruning data points from the original dataset The original apparent visual magnitudes, mapp, used in this study were from the ICQ issues 96-100 and provided by Daniel W. E. Green (personal communication), who selected observers with good coverage for both hemispheres (see Table1). Ini- tially, all 2240 of the visual magnitudes were used. We removed 751 points following the best practice guidelines from Green & Morris(1987) and Green 2010 (personal communication), which included removing values when any of the following occurred: • No magnitude method was listed • Methods of obtaining magnitudes that were not the Vsekhsvyatskij-Stevenson- Sidgwick (S), Van Biesbroeck-Bobrovnikoff-Meisel (B), Modified Out-Out, In- focus, or Extrafocal-Extinction methods • Poor observing conditions • Under 20 degrees elevation with no extinction correction applied • Telescopes used for mapp = 5:5 and brighter • Binoculars used for mapp = 1:5 and brighter • CCD or photoelectric detectors used • Poor quality star comparison catalogs used • More than one magnitude per day submitted by an observer (if this occurred, we kept the measurement made with the smallest aperture instrument, which is believed to be most accurate) Some observers, such as Herman Mikuz, submitted a mixture of visual and CCD magnitude estimates. When used properly, CCD and photoelectric detectors can provide very accurate values. However, they do not always agree well with visual magnitudes determined by eye, and it is not straightforward to combine data obtained with the two techniques (see Kidger(2002); Sosa & Fernández(2009); de Almeida et al.(2009)). Thus, we removed all CCD measurements from this dataset. Since CCDs were not widely used during the passage of Hale-Bopp, this affected relatively few points. The remaining apparent magnitudes are the starting point for our analysis and are shown in Fig.2a, which plots magnitude vs. heliocentric distance. The other 5 panels b; c and d of these figures show the lightcurve after correcting for geocentric distance, ∆, phase angle, θ, and observer bias, respectively, as we describe in the next sections.

Load more

  30

Copy Link