Post by magic612 on Mar 1, 2013 22:02:04 GMT -6
I don't mean with respect to it's magnitude. The listed magnitude I see at Harvard's Minor Planet Center indicate something between magnitude 1 and 0 from March 5 through the 14. That should make it a fairly bright comet.
What I'm concerned about is how low it will be to see. Look at fellow CA Curt Renz's chart here:
curtrenz.com/comets17.html
Now compare it to Sky and Telescope's chart:
www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel/beyondthepage/185665152.html (Scroll down to bottom of page.)
Now, I've looked for Mercury down as low as 5 degrees above the horizon. I have VERY clear views to the west from where I live; I can see down almost to the horizon for most of it. I could BARELY see Mercury at 5 degrees on a GREAT night. And it's a point source of light. Plus I know what to look for, and exaclty where to look.
PANSTARRS will be spread out. And for the first days - through the 9th or so - it will be 5 degrees OR LESS above the horizon a mere 30 minutes after sunset. There's still a lot of twilight 30 minutes after the sun has dropped below the horizon. And at the comet's peak magnitude of 0.5 or so on the 9 / 10 / 11, it will still only be, at best, maybe 7 degrees up at 30 minutes past sunset. It drops a full magnitude in brightness by the 17th, at which point it will be all of 10 degrees up at 30 minutes past sunset.
Even 10 degrees over the horizon at that time can be hard to spot the point-source Mercury at the same magnitude. This is not to fault Curt at all - if anything, it is his chart that made me realize that we may wind up over-hyping this. The media is already saying, "NAKED EYE COMET!"
But are we REALLY going to see a "naked eye comet" that is a few degrees off the horizon, that will require SUPER transparent skies, a level horizon, and those who know exactly what they are looking for? At best, binoculars are going to be required, I think, and likely a decent telescope.
Thoughts?
What I'm concerned about is how low it will be to see. Look at fellow CA Curt Renz's chart here:
curtrenz.com/comets17.html
Now compare it to Sky and Telescope's chart:
www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel/beyondthepage/185665152.html (Scroll down to bottom of page.)
Now, I've looked for Mercury down as low as 5 degrees above the horizon. I have VERY clear views to the west from where I live; I can see down almost to the horizon for most of it. I could BARELY see Mercury at 5 degrees on a GREAT night. And it's a point source of light. Plus I know what to look for, and exaclty where to look.
PANSTARRS will be spread out. And for the first days - through the 9th or so - it will be 5 degrees OR LESS above the horizon a mere 30 minutes after sunset. There's still a lot of twilight 30 minutes after the sun has dropped below the horizon. And at the comet's peak magnitude of 0.5 or so on the 9 / 10 / 11, it will still only be, at best, maybe 7 degrees up at 30 minutes past sunset. It drops a full magnitude in brightness by the 17th, at which point it will be all of 10 degrees up at 30 minutes past sunset.
Even 10 degrees over the horizon at that time can be hard to spot the point-source Mercury at the same magnitude. This is not to fault Curt at all - if anything, it is his chart that made me realize that we may wind up over-hyping this. The media is already saying, "NAKED EYE COMET!"
But are we REALLY going to see a "naked eye comet" that is a few degrees off the horizon, that will require SUPER transparent skies, a level horizon, and those who know exactly what they are looking for? At best, binoculars are going to be required, I think, and likely a decent telescope.
Thoughts?