Talk:C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS)

Brightness predictions

In the section named in the Subject, the second paragraph (Maximum brightness may occur...) seems to be inconsistent with the first and third paragraphs.

Perhaps it should be stated in the second paragraph that the number is absolute magnitude, and not overall magnitude?

algocu (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. C messier (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi fixed and please leave it at the bottom fixed 207.161.210.19 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Unusual date format 9.4 October, not sure what it means. Should that be fixed? Assambrew (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Assambrew: It is the date with decimal in UTC, it is quite standard in astronomy to not mess with local time zones. C messier (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course UTC is the appropriate time to use. But I use UTC often, and have never encountered that format before. So 9.4 October would correspond to 2024-10-09 09:36 UTC, is that correct? I can see how that shorter format could be useful, but seems pretty obscure without a suffix of some kind. Can you direct me to a reference? I don't see any mention of that format in the article Coordinated Universal Time, nor at https://www.utctime.net/. Assambrew (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There are some info at Decimal time#Scientific decimal time and here. C messier (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

C 2023 a3

What's a year 2A02:4540:700C:91F2:1:0:EF7B:D94C (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Brightness predictions clarification

I don't think that a clarification tag is needed about Gideon van Buitenen. I mean it isn't really even necessary to even have the name, but I wanted to credit him. The reason is that the comet brightness equation has a parameter named n that corresponds to brightening rate. An n of 3 is suggestive of a dynamically new comet while and n of 4 a dynamically old. As the MPC only publishes the n=3 prediction it is useful to have an n=4 prediction too. C messier (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotted by SOHO

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/comet-tsuchinshan-atlas-comes-view-coronagraph-imagery

©Geni (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Spotted by Bishan

Just it was a sunset and at the western hemispher i was ble to caught the 2001:8F8:1D28:874F:C8F0:CE7B:1744:270D (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Just it was a sunset and at the western hemispher i was able to spotted the TSUCHINSHAN ATLAS rays it was blue and clear long as halfwaydown. 2001:8F8:1D28:874F:C8F0:CE7B:1744:270D (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

discovered twice?

Should not the initial discovery stand as the only one, even if the west hates everything Chinese?

200.68.169.223 (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC) baden k.

But it was discovered twice. The first time it didn't receive follow-up and it was then lost and received again attention after its rediscovery, when it was also noticed it had been observed before. C messier (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

references in lead are a mess

The lead says, "on 27 September 2024, when it became visible to the naked eye.", and then gives two references dated March 2023. That is clearly wrong, because there was no way of knowing that 18 months ago. Looking at the edit history, someone changed the tense without changing the references. So new references are needed (by someone with more comet expertise than me). Adpete (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed --C messier (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Same problem in the "Brightness predictions" section, which gives an actual brightness in October based on a reference from 11 September ("and peaked at over −4 on 9 October, when it brightened by almost 6 magnitudes due to forward scattering.[reference of 11-Sep-2024]"). That section should have some up-to-date references and have "predictions" removed from the section title. Adpete (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adpete: The predictions section is about the predictions on how bright the comet would be and they now belong to the past. There is similar section in the article about Comet Kohoutek. The observed actual brightness should be added in the observational history section. C messier (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no such section for Halley's Comet or Comet McNaught. I think Kohoutek is an exception, and as I read its "Brightness predictions" section, I get the impression that the section exists only because the predictions for its brightness were so badly wrong. I'm not convinced such a section belongs in comet articles in general, or in this one. And style-wise it feels like "undue weight" to have a heading for predicted brightness but not for observed brightness. Adpete (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This comet received a wide range of brightness predictions. It is quite telling that the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams published predictions about this comet in three different telegrams (#5228, 5404, and 5445), which is quite uncommon. Usually the predicted magnitude would be mentioned briefly in the discovery section but here there are enough info and quite spread in time for a stand alone section to exist. The observed brightness is mentioned in the observational history section. C messier (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)