Paper detail

Main-Belt Comet 238P/Read Revisited

We present a series of observations of the return of activity in main-belt comet 238P/Read. Using data obtained in July and August 2010 when 238P appeared to be largely inactive, we find best-fit IAU phase function parameters of H=19.05+/-0.05 mag, corresponding to a nucleus radius of r_n ~ 0.4 km (assuming an albedo of p_R=0.05), and G=-0.03+/-0.05. Observations from September 2010 onward show a clear rise in activity, causing both a notable change in visible morphology and increasing photometric excesses beyond what would be expected based on bare nucleus observations. By the end of the observing period reported on here, the dust mass in the coma shows indications of reaching a level comparable to that observed in 2005, but further observations are highly encouraged once 238P again becomes observable from Earth in mid-2011 to confirm whether this level of activity is achieved, or if a notable decrease in activity strength compared to 2005 can be detected. Comet 238P is now the second main-belt comet (after 133P/Elst-Pizarro) observed to exhibit recurrent activity, providing strong corroboration for the conclusion that it is a true comet whose active episodes are driven by sublimation of volatile ice.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.