Ron, �� Boo !! as in as in Bootes (formerly somewhat known as Quadrans Muralis), not to pronounce like the "oo" of booties. The latest news on the Quadrantids' meteor shower radiating from Bootes. Sounds like there may have been some major booty shaking and perhaps disintegration of the parent body 2003 EH 1. I can't resist asking if anyone can correlate any Jan 3 or (Jan 4?) falls, or there about. This should be a fresh research question. Anne from Impactika.com has listed the following falls for that date:
Jan 2 (none)
Jan 3
1877 Warrenton
1903 St. Mark's
1970 Lost City
Jan 4, 5 (none)
Saludos
Doug Dawn
Mexico
http://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/IAUCircular2003Dec8.txt
2003 EH_1 AND THE QUADRANTIDS
P. Jenniskens, NASA Ames Research Center, has pointed out that
2003 EH_1 (cf. MPEC 2003-E27) would seem to be a very strong
candidate for the parent of the Quadrantid meteor stream. The
later orbits, from arcs of up to 48 days (MPO 48330), indicate that
frequent approaches within 0.2-0.3 AU of Jupiter occur, those
during the past century or two evidently increasing q from just
under 1 AU (with other orbital elements also very similar to those
of the Quadrantids) to the present 1.19 AU. The current
theoretical radiant for 2003 EH_1 (R.A. = 229.9 deg, Decl. = +49.6
deg; V_inf = 41.7 km/s at solar longitude 282.94 deg, equinox
2000.0) is at the center of the Quadrantid radiants measured by
photographic means, the narrow dispersion implying a young (about
500 years) shower age. From that dispersion, Jenniskens et al.
(1997, Astron. Astrophys. 327, 1242) suspected that the parent was
still among the meteoroids, hiding as a minor planet. On computing
a parabolic orbit for C/1490 Y1, Hasegawa (1979, Publ. Astron. Soc.
Japan 31, 257) introduced that comet as the likely Quadrantid
parent. In attempting to link the 2003 observations to those of
1490-1491, Jenniskens, and also B. G. Marsden (Center for
Astrophysics), have found that most of the potential solutions with
the required Jan. 1491 perihelion date yield 0.5 < q < 0.6 AU in
1491, and this is probably too small to fit the data used by
Hasegawa. Values in the more acceptable range of 0.7 < q < 0.8 AU
(and 0.80 > e > 0.75) certainly arise for 1488 < T < 1494, however,
the desired date being clearly attainable with the help also of a
close approach to the earth or -- more likely -- the presence of
nongravitational forces. Further light could be shed on the
problem by the recognition of precovery and/or recovery
observations of 2003 EH_1, which is presumably a comet and that
should in any case be considered a high-priority object for further
study.
(C) Copyright 2003 CBAT
2003 December 8 (8252) Daniel W. E. Green
