THE SPLITTING OF COMET HALLEY

In combination with the authors previous obsewation about the splitting of Comet Halley in March 1986, the events involving the sharp, straight feature in the antisolar direction observed in the head of Comet Halley in 1910 (such as those occurring on May 14, 25 and 31, and June 2) are rediscussed The analysis leads to the following scenario: When Comet Halley explodes and splits, a fragment jettisoned or thrown off from the nucleus will, after moving in the direction of its tail, develop into a mini-comet. Although not well developed or permanent, it has its own plasma tail and, sometimes, a dust tail. If Bobrovnikoff’s definition of a secondary nucleus is assumed, then the fragment should be considered as a real secondary nucleus. It seems that the current idea of a tailward jet suggested by Sekanina and Larson is a wrong explanation for the plasma tail of a mini-comet and hence the rotation period of 52-53h for Comet Halley is

In combination with the authors previous obsewation about the splitting of Comet Halley in March 1986, the events involving the sharp, straight feature in the antisolar direction observed in the head of Comet Halley in 1910 (such as those occurring on May 14, 25 and 31, and June 2) are rediscussed The analysis leads to the following scenario: When Comet Halley explodes and splits, a fragment jettisoned or thrown off from the nucleus will, after moving in the direction of its tail, develop into a mini-comet. Although not well developed or permanent, it has its own plasma tail and, sometimes, a dust tail. If Bobrovnikoff's definition of a secondary nucleus is assumed, then the fragment should be considered as a real secondary nucleus. It seems that the current idea of a tailward jet suggested by Sekanina and Larson is a wrong explanation for the plasma tail of a mini-comet and hence the rotation period of 52-53h for Comet Halley is doubtful