New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Postmortem on Comet LINEAR Fuels Old Debates

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: NASA, HAROLD WEAVER, the HST Comet LINEAR Investigation Team and the University of Hawaii

It's been almost a year since astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope chanced upon comet LINEAR at death's door. They watched in awe as part of the comet's crust blew off and its core lit up in a fiery blaze. Within four short hours from that initial explosion, LINEAR burned 50 percent brighter than normal, and during the next few days it slowly disintegrated, shooting house-size fragments down its smoking tail. Now researchers have fully analyzed those final moments¿and no fewer that six teams report findings in today's issue of Science.

The new information about comet LINEAR's makeup and breakup raises old questions about comets in general. For one thing, researchers had presumed that comets contained equal parts of snow or ice and meteoritic material. But based on the new studies, LINEAR appears to have had little ice, leading some scientists to speculate that it formed relatively close to the sun, near Jupiter's orbit. Also, the comet's core seems to have been a pile of rocky rubble and not a homogeneous body, as some astrophysicists have suggested.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Finally new spectrographic data reveal that LINEAR contained very little carbon monoxide. Some scientists suspected that this supervolatile compound, found in certain comets, had contributed to LINEAR's demise. Instead they now propose that LINEAR's seemingly rapid rate of rotation¿coupled with its approach to the sun¿helped to send it to the brink. "As we debate these issues, we also have to keep in mind that it's possible that LINEAR was just an odd comet," says Hal Weaver of Johns Hopkins University. Weaver is a co-author on three of the six Science papers. "But to get a sense for that, we have to keep looking for evidence from other comets and try to build up some statistics."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe