<p>I have been digging through various scientific articles on modelling the breakup of SL9 to attempt to ascertain its intial size, yet the various estimates vary tremendously.</p>
<p>A radius of 700 m - 1000 m is a common estimate, but some have predicted 2000 m - 2500 m (and even higher).</p>
<p>I know there cannot be &quot;consensus&quot; on such a matter, as the comet was never directly observed before its tidal disruption in July 1992, but what is the best estimate and/or accepted range for the radius of the comet?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-26T11:28:29.530Z
It might be impossible to come up with a consensus on the "best" estimate; those who were well-versed in the art of comet radius estimation all likely argued their estimate was "best" otherwise they wouldn't have offered it. What might be easier to answer in a fact-based way here in Stack Exchange would be a question about the assumptions that went into each of those estimates. To that tend, it might be a good idea to add some links to where those estimates were cited.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-01T12:40:39.760Z
@uhoh thanks a lot for your comment. When I am not rushing to finish my final year project I will come back and post some links to the articles!
Gregor Hartl Watters
<comets><tidal-forces>
What is the best estimate for the radius of Shoemaker-Levy 9?
Gregor Hartl Watters
# What is the best estimate for the radius of Shoemaker-Levy 9?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-03-26)

I have been digging through various scientific articles on modelling the breakup of SL9 to attempt to ascertain its intial size, yet the various estimates vary tremendously.

A radius of 700 m - 1000 m is a common estimate, but some have predicted 2000 m - 2500 m (and even higher).

I know there cannot be "consensus" on such a matter, as the comet was never directly observed before its tidal disruption in July 1992, but what is the best estimate and/or accepted range for the radius of the comet?

**Tags:** comets, tidal-forces
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It might be impossible to come up with a consensus on the "best" estimate; those who were well-versed in the art of comet radius estimation all likely argued their estimate was "best" otherwise they wouldn't have offered it. What might be easier to answer in a fact-based way here in Stack Exchange would be a question about the assumptions that went into each of those estimates. To that tend, it might be a good idea to add some links to where those estimates were cited.  
> **username_0**: @uhoh thanks a lot for your comment. When I am not rushing to finish my final year project I will come back and post some links to the articles!  

---

## 0 answers

