The year of 1986 is the Halley comet year. The history of cometology retained
the following curious case. In 1910, when its (i.e. the Halley comet’s)
previous visit to the Sun took place, one of the March numbers of a newspaper
"Golos Samary” ("The Voice of Samara”) reported, that a certain monk sold
shrewdly at the central city square the leaves of "Charm against meeting with
Halley comet” of the following content: "You are devil! Satan! Never world
Velzewool! Don’t feign you are a celestial star! Don’t deceive the Orthodoxes,
hide your godless tail, because the God’s stars have no tails…Dip your tail
into fiery river, let it reduce to ashes, let it char, let it fry! Etc…” This
curiosity was reprinted by "Russkiye Vedomosti” ("Russian Registers”) on the
3-rd of April, 1910 and went down in the history of the Russian science.
It is interesting to note, that the next visit of the Halley comet was in 1986
and coincided with the 400th anniversary of the city of Kuibyshev (formerly and
now afresh - SAMARA! – rem. A.G.).
The author of this article, living in Kuibyshev, dedicated to this significant
date the application for the discovery "Comets formation phenomenon” [1,2],
which, as the author considers, convincingly confirms and at last resolves a
so-called comet problem.
2. EXISTING VIEWS (HYPOTHESES) ON THE COMETS FORMATION MECHANISM
In accordance with the views, which were shared by the most part of the
astronomers before the experiment "Vega” ("Venus-Halley”), the comets originate
from the so-called comet cloud of Oort and consist basically of dirty ice .
This hypothesis cannot convincingly explain the fact why the comets are grouped
around the major planets of the Solar system (in families of planet-giants).
Besides, the mechanism of comets breaking-away from the Oort cloud is actually
The Nemesida hypothesis (the dwarfish star – the satellite of the Sun) did not
save the situation.
The second basic hypothesis (S.K.Vsehswiatsky) states, that the comets are the
result of volcanism on the major planets or their satellites. Yet it’s obvious,
that this mechanism demandes too high initial speed.
The basic hypothesis now, after the experiment "Vega”, is the idea that the
asteroids are dead comets. The author considers this point of view as an
intermediate stage on the way to the truth.
3. A CONCRETE COMETS FORMATION MECHANISM
The basic author’s idea is the following: "The comets are formed from asteroids
as the result of asteroids piercing through the rings of the major planets of
the Solar system”.
Indeed, it is known that the planets of the Solar system can be collided with
small space bodies including asteroids. The major planets (Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, probably, Neptune) are surrounded by rings consisting of separate
particles. The rings can also be subjected to collisions with asteroids because
they are not the exception in this sense. During these collisions the rings may
be pierced through because they are not very dense.
For instance, the thickness of the Saturn ring is about 2-5 km, moreover the stars can
be viewed through them. A typical size of the particles is about 1 cm (in accordance with the
data of "Pioneer-11”).
It is interesting to note, that the space apparatus "Voyager” discovered the
two Saturn satellites in the ring system, moreover, one of them is moving in
the ring, but the other has a slightly slanting orbit and therefore it finds
itself either at one or the other side periodically. This circumstance confirms
the possibility of piercing of the ring. The destruction of both the ring
particles and asteroid and the distribution spectrum of the particles by speed
will take place as a result of the piercing of the ring by asteroid as strong
as the concrete circumstances allow. Besides the asteroid flown through the
ring takes off some quantity of its substance. The small fragments of this
collision can generate the meteor flows afterwards.
A basic part of the asteroid (a big "piece”) will be soiled by the ring
substance and, actually, this very part forms the comet. Indeed, the chemical
composition of comet tails and major planets rings are remarkably similar: H2O
(ice, snow, steam), different frozen gases and other volatile components (to
the point, the Saturn rings are localized inside the Roche’s sphere for a
The above-mentioned mechanism makes clear and obvious the fact, that the
periodical comets (i.e. by the type of orbits – orbit classification in
families) are conventionally grouped around the major planets having the rings.
The Jupiter ring is less dense than Saturn rings and it probably consists of
snow and gas. This partially explains the fact, that the most of short-period
comets (Jupiterian family) have a faint tail or only have a coma (here it is
necessary to take into consideration the rapid evolution, as far as the period
is short enough).
A periodical variations of glitter of the Donati and Halley (with 52-hour
period) comets are explained by the fact, that monolithic nucleus of these
comets has an asymmetrical stretching form and accomplishes the rotary motion.
This rotation may be the result of collision with the particles of the ring.
A basic mass component of a comet nucleus is determined by the type of mother’s
asteroid: stony, iron-stony, ferrous.
The facts of the division of some comet nuclei may be explained by the presence
of cracks in the nucleus (it may be the result of the collision with the ring).
It may lead to the thermodeformation in the vicinity of the Sun.
The orbits of the most part of comets lie in the ecliptic plane or near it,
although the orbits of separate comets are precessing. This circumstance is
normal in the proposed mechanism frames.
Let us value the frequency of the comets rise. Let us take the Earth
In the current century (here – in the 20th century – rem. A.G.) the next coarse
enough meteorites fell to the Earth (on the land): Tungus in 1908, Sihote-Alin
in 1947, Fenes-County in 1948, and some others. Adopting that the water surface
of the Earth is more, than thrice larger that of the land, we suppose, that
about 15 coarse meteorite fell onto the Earth in this century. Considering that
the radius of our planet is nearly equal to 6370 km, we shall get, that
on each 2.7.106 km2 of the transverse section area of the Earth (i.e. the ball)
may be one collision with a space body in century. The outside diameter of the
Saturn rings is nearly 2.74.105 km and the width of the rings is 5 times as
great as the Earth diameter, hence, the Saturn rings area is equal to ~
4.2.1010 km2. Considering the relative frequency (on the unit of the transverse
section area) of the collisions of Saturn rings with small space bodies (with
asteroids) equal to the that of the Earth, and also considering that the
probability of the hit into the flat disk from the free direction is half as
much as that of a ball of the same transverse section area, it’s possible to
get the value of nearly 7800 collisions in a century (i.e. every week!). As a
result of this collisions the ring may be pierced and the comet is formed.
Still in this calculation was not taken into consideration the gravitation and
screening influence of planet-giant itself, the influence of the mutual speed
of collisions, the finite thickness of the rings and the angle of interaction,
the sizes and mass of the asteroid and the particles of the ring, etc., so the
real frequency of the comet forming will be less, than it is calculated.
Considering the real value even 10 times less, we’ll see, that the figure still
remaines big enough (we discover not more than 10-20 comets every year as
average this refer to all the families taken together).
The best criterium of the truth is the experiment. The author considers that
the space experiment "Vega – Jiotto” shiningly confirms his hypothesis. Indeed,
it turned out that the nucleus is monolithic and it has the asymmetrical form,
it is darker, than it was supposed from the "ice” hypothesis. Still the
concrete analisis of the results will be given in the next chapter.
4. A CRITICISM OF THE REALIZATION OF THE EXPERIMENT "VEGA” AND THE
INTERPRETATION OF ITS RESULTS, GIVEN BY THE ISR OF THE AS OF THE USSR
(Remarks: - This chapter is, basically, the co-name author’s article of
About 150 soviet organization and enterprises took part in the
creation of the station "Vega” . The considerable forces and means were
taken for the experiment carrying out. It may seeme, that the experiment have
passed successfully, the unique data have been received about the structure of
comet nucleus. Still, the author of these lines does not agree with a such
synonymous appreciation, although he doesn’t deny the fact, that there really
as received some unique information.
Even more, than a year ago before the peak of the events of the experiment
"Vega”, the author formulated and argumentally substantiated the hypothesis
about comets forming in the result of piercing the rings of the planet-giants
of Solar system by asteroids. This hypothesis was prevented to the ISR and
other organizations. Unfortunately the hypothesis has not been considered at
the ISR and author received only formal letters.
Comrades from the ISR adopted the ice nucleus comet (with soils) hypothesis
among their weapons, as a dogma, which, ostensibly, was shiningly confirmed by
the experiment. In accordance with this hypothesis, the ice comet nucleus must
gush out great quantities of steam and dust, that was reflected on the
experiment itself: the minimum distance from the nucleus at which the both
"Vega” apparatuses passed by, was intentionally chose within the limits of 8-9
thou km, although the actual precision of pointing was not worse than 1500 km. Only apparatus
"Jiotto” (although not without the aid of the "Vegas”) passed closely to the
nucleus and showed the features of a relief: hills, craters.
In conformity with the author hypothesis the comet nucleus must be monolithic:
stony, iron-stony, ferrous – by the type of mother’s asteroid. Gases, given off
by nucleus under the Solar heating, - are the result of absorbtion and
adsobtion the gases and other volatile components, composing the particles of
the rings of major-planets. Thus, the ejections from the comet nucleus
("soiled” asteroid) must be comparatively small. To the point, it is confirmed
by the data of apparatus "ICE” (ex "ISEE-3”), which passed through the tail of
Jacobini-Cinner comet on 11 September 1985 (before the peak of the experiment
"Vega”) the distance of 7850
km from the nucleus and which fixed an unexpectedly
small density of the dust [5,6]. The experiment with the station "Vega-1” showed, that dust density is
significantly less, than it was predicted by the "ice” model of the nucleus. In
connection with this circumstance author sent a telegram at the ISR. The
mistake may be corrected, inasmuch as also "Vega-2” took place and it trajectory
may be improved so that photos would qualitative really, still it is no
But, after all, strictly speaking, even if both "Vegas” would be directed
straight to the nucleus (with the accuracy of aiming equal to 1500 km all the same the
result would be negative: they wouldn’t hit the aim!) and on approaching to it
they would be put out of order but still the task of the stations would be
fulfilled as far as the information was transferred to the Earth in the real
time. Nowadays the capacity for work of the two stations are no longer of any
importance because the unique chance has been lost… There were two "Vegas” and
each of them passed by the comet nucleus at the distance of 8-9 thousands km!
It may be compared with the situation when the volcano eruption taking place at
the Kamtchatka is observed from Moscow. It at least "Vega-2” approached closer to the
nucleus then it would be possible to excuse the ambiguities and sheer blunder
of the type: "The Halley-comet has a double nucleus?!” or "…it seems that the
nucleus has no clear boundaries, - it is similar to a boiling pot”  –
according to the data of "Vega-1”.
In  the following figures are offered: the time error of the meeting with
the nucleus is 10-20 s, a relative velocity of the approach of SA (space
apparatus) to the comet is less than 80 km/s. Consequently, the possible error
of the two "Vegas” aiming (multiply these figures) is not more than 1.5
thousand km. Why was it necessary to fulfil such a senseless double? And who
was interested in it?
However, it was proudly declared that both of the stations are keeping their
capacity for work and now the objects in Universe are searched that might be
studied by the "Vegas”. Still, this declaration sounds as no more than an
attempt to appologise their own mistakes (but to-day we don’t hear much about
these searches). Let us wish the ISR sucsess as far as the area of the searches
is very wide: the whole boundless space!
Probably the author is a little bit exaggerating, on the photos of "Vega-2” something is seen and this
was shown for first time by TV USSR on the 24th of April, 1986 (after the
program "Vremya” ("Time”)), but in this very TV-program a sacramental statement
was formulated: the comet nucleus is a dark, coal-like body having the
coefficient of reflection comparable with that of asteroids! But you see, the
author of this paper expressed his opinion on this point even more definitely
more than a year ago! My first letter to the ISR was sent on the 20th of
February, 1985! Then at the same TV-program an incorrect conclusion was heard
about that the comet nucleus was still icy. The same very thesis was formulated
by Academician R.Z.Sagdeyev in [9, p.88]: "…the hypothesis according to which
the comet nucleus is an enormous block of "dirty” ice of an irregular form has
been confirmed…Its surface is covered by a crust of some refractory material
having the thickness of about a centimeter – the composition of this material
is being specified”. The thesis is repeated with a really enviable persistence!
R.Z.Sagdeyev is echoed by Professor V.I. Moroz the author of the so-called
nucleus model in the form of a "March snow-drift” [10,11] that at first sight
seems to be convincing. But this is at first sight only! The case is that this
model is not in principle able-bodied! Though I had no chache to pick the
nucleus of the Halley comet with my finger still I declare that the comparison
of the comet nucleus with the March snow-drift is erroneous because of quite
different physical condition. We know that specks of dust and mud don’t fly
away from the snow-drift due to the gravitation, and the Halley comet nucleus
has practically no gravitation influence, as far as its mass is too small. Add
to this the pressure of vapours being formed and dilating into vacuum… Under such
circumstances even the crust of porous platinum would not keep at the surface
for any considerable period of time, to say nothing of the impossibility of the
process of the crust growth resulting in its self-renewal, i.e. the "March
snow-drift” model that was widely advertised in disabled and groundless in
Basing on the theory of the icy nucleus it is difficult to explain the hills
and craters at the surface discovered by "Jiotto”, not by the "Vegas”, as far
as the melting of ice leads to the smoothing of "wounds” (Mr.
B.A.Vorontsov-Veliaminov is of the opinion that craters are percussive
Probably, R.Z.Sagdeyev and his colleagues being the focus of attention of the
press and taking a great interest in giving away autographs were too busy and
had no time not only to analyse the materials which I sent them but even to go
deep into their own statements. Let us recall the situation around the
experiment "Vega”: at first there were a lot of advertising in the press, by
radio and TV, then the experiment itself was carried out and were promised that
the results were to be published soon. Now the racket has been finally faded
and it turns out that to "process the obtained material” requires a
considerable time (more than a year) and the results will be published in
special journals. And nowadays our attention is switched over to the project
"Phobos” ("Fobos”) (writed in 1986 - Rem. A.G.). As for the Halley comet, it
turns out that the answer to all the questions might be finally given probably
only in 76 years when its next visit to the Sun takes place and we’ll have at
our disposal different technical possibilities - such a "regret” was expressed
by the Academician R.Z.Sagdeyev (wasn’t it done so that not to return any
longer to this an unpleasant for him questions?). I am afraid that this
"regret” is simulated. Still I suppose that tens of millions of roubles were
not wasted only for the sake of vague knowledge?
However, it is interesting to note that in  R.Z.Sagdeyev writes: "…the inevitability
of the objective tendency doesn’t diminish our responsibility before this (i.e.
communist – A.G.) future…”. Here undoubtedly Acad. R.Z.Sagdeyev is right. I
would like to remind of that the USA are planning to realize their projects
"Asteroid Flieby” and "Comet’s Rendezvous” earlier than in 76 years – and the
USSR may lose its priority in the science of comets…
A comet nucleus reflects approximately 4% of the incident light , so it may
be conclude that it is a black body of a good quality! And it was really
difficult to call it icy.
In  R.Z.Sagdeyev revealed a turn in his views that is unexpected enough,
the academician writes: "Outwardly it (i.e. the object – A.G.) is somewhat like
Mars’s satellites - Phobos and Daimos (the "Phobos” – project is in prospect
with R.Z.Sagdeyev (in 1986) – here is a sound logical connection for you! –
A.G.) but still more similar analogues may be some small satellites of Saturn
and Uranus. This keeps within the frames of the hypothesis (I wonder, which and
whose? As far as before this there was said a lot of nonsense about the cloud
of Oort, Nemesida, etc. – A.G.), assuming, that comet nuclei were formed
comparatively not far from the Sun, approximately at the placewhere the major
planets are located – from Jupiter to Neptune, and then were thrown off at a
greater distance during the formation of these planets” (underlined by A.G.).
Any explanation is needless… For Academician R.Z.Sagdeyev it remains nothing
but to wait a little more and to pronounce quite a fatal phrase: "It seems to
me that comet nuclei were generated out of asteroids while the latter were
punching the rings of the major planets of the Solar system…” – i.e. to read at
last the formula of my discovery.
In  we were told that during the "Vega” – experiment the amount of steam
lost by the comet nucleus every second was measured for the first time. And the
figure of tens of tons was cited. It would be interesting to know in what way
this figure was obtained as far as there were no direct measurements of this
index (for this purpose it would be ideal to place the comet nucleus into a
sack!). However the author of this paper having at his disposal such values as
the cross section of the nucleus, integral flow of the solar energy per unit of
the area (i.e. solar constant taking into account the distance from the Sun)
has determined the amount of water that may be heated from 3oK (the temperature
of the cosmic background) up to the vaporous condition (with the account of all
the phase transfers) per 1 second and has obtained the figure of the same order
that in , assuming that ice is a black body (Kabs = 0.96). It means that
this figure was simply calculated in ISR on the basis of their faulse model,
i.e. the desirable was claimed as real.
The apparatus "Jiotto” revealed the jet escaping of gas (vapours). The
intensity in jets may not be higher than the physical limit caused by the ideal
conditions of the solar heating (as far as the nucleus is not a gas-bag) and
also by the accepted physical model (let it be even a black icy nucleus),
consequently, the intensity out of the jet is much lower than the physical
limit and the total loss of the nucleus mass in the form of vapour is in any
case considerably lower than the figure mentioned in  and which representing
the physical limit. Besides, it is known that the Halley-comet nucleus is
rotating and one side of it is more active  and consequently the other is
on the contrary less active. This circumstance reinforces the "activity
contrast” and lowers the index. Thus the figure of 40 tons of the vapour lost
by the comet per one second is exaggerated (and not by the order!), and if to
take into account my hypothesis (i.e. the nucleus is the asteroid in its basis)
it is exaggerated still more. The "Vega” – apparatuses passed at a great
relative velocity (~ 80 km/s) by the Halley comet nucleus thus creating their
own blast, the amount of the registered dust and gas is to be distributed over
a lot of kilometers of the trajectory; the dust and gas in their basic part may
fly together with the comet and break off from it not so fast as it may seem –
taking account of all the forces and factors (many of them though weak act in
great scales) may lead to an unusual result.
Note that the fact consisting in that one side is more active than the other
substantially confirms the mechanism of the comets formation as the result of
punching the rings of the major planets of the Solar system by asteroids (see
the materials of the application for the discovery), as far as the time of
punching the ring by an asteroid