I also think they should call this an "interstellar object" rather than a comet, as the proper designation. It could bean interstellar cometary body, but it could also be an interstellar asteroid. We just haven't got any evidence to confirm either way. All we have, really, is flight path data and some distant, fuzzy photos.
Also, keep in mind that "perihelion" is it's closest approach to the sun, and that in the case of this body, that closest approach is on the other side of the sun where we could not directly observe it. The "perihelion" photos above were taken as it cleared the sun and became visible again, meaning that we are looking at it along an axis where a potential tail would be hard to see, since it would be pointed almost directly away from us. From Earth at that time, a "tail" would only appear as a fuzzy halo around the object, perhaps with a heavier concentration on one side or the other as the angle changed to reveal any potential tail. This is because we would be looking along the axis of the tail rather than a side-on view of it. This does not mean a tail is not there, only that we would have a poor angle to see one if it was. It also does not mean a tail IS there, hence why it should be called an "object" rather than a "comet" at this point in time. "Object" covers all eventualities, from "comet" to "asteroid" to even "interstellar space craft". "Object" is non-judgmental and non-prejudicial. It just means "something solid enough that you wouldn't want to beat your head against it."
It's possible that Avi Loeb has read "Rendezvous with Rama" one time too many.
.
Also, keep in mind that "perihelion" is it's closest approach to the sun, and that in the case of this body, that closest approach is on the other side of the sun where we could not directly observe it. The "perihelion" photos above were taken as it cleared the sun and became visible again, meaning that we are looking at it along an axis where a potential tail would be hard to see, since it would be pointed almost directly away from us. From Earth at that time, a "tail" would only appear as a fuzzy halo around the object, perhaps with a heavier concentration on one side or the other as the angle changed to reveal any potential tail. This is because we would be looking along the axis of the tail rather than a side-on view of it. This does not mean a tail is not there, only that we would have a poor angle to see one if it was. It also does not mean a tail IS there, hence why it should be called an "object" rather than a "comet" at this point in time. "Object" covers all eventualities, from "comet" to "asteroid" to even "interstellar space craft". "Object" is non-judgmental and non-prejudicial. It just means "something solid enough that you wouldn't want to beat your head against it."
It's possible that Avi Loeb has read "Rendezvous with Rama" one time too many.
.
“Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
![[Image: CometLemmon_DeWinter_3549.jpg]](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/2509/CometLemmon_DeWinter_3549.jpg)
![[Image: E4FSjQL9dXPA3U8eES5EV6.gif]](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/E4FSjQL9dXPA3U8eES5EV6.gif)
![[Image: 1*Oz5u7sJf9PU63kIUSopj6Q.jpeg]](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/1*Oz5u7sJf9PU63kIUSopj6Q.jpeg)
![[Image: 1*kNmMQzNeFTIBw4DDjfmQoA.jpeg]](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/1*kNmMQzNeFTIBw4DDjfmQoA.jpeg)
