Paper detail

The catastrophic fragmentation of Comet 332P (Ikeya-Murakami)

We describe 2016 January to April observations of the fragments of 332P/Ikeya-Murakami, a comet earlier observed in a 2010 October outburst (Ishiguro et al 2014). We present photometry of the fragments, and perform simulations to infer the time of breakup. We argue that the eastern-most rapidly brightening fragment ($F4$) best corresponds to the original nucleus, rather than the initial bright fragment $F1$. We compute radial and tangential non-gravitational parameters, $A_1 = (1.5 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-8}$ AU day$^{-2}$ and $(7.2 \pm 1.9) \times 10^{-9}$ AU day$^{-2}$; both are consistent with zero at the $4σ$ level. Monte Carlo simulations indicate that the fragments were emitted on the outbound journey well after the 2010 outburst, with bright fragment $F1$ splitting in mid--2013 and the fainter fragments within months of the 2016 January recovery. Western fragment $F7$ is the oldest, dating from 2011. We suggest that the delayed onset of the splitting is consistent with a self-propagating crystallization of water ice.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.