The breakup of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 is discussed both in the context of splitting as a cometary phenomenon, comparing this object with other split comets, and as an event with its own idiosyncrasies. The physical appearance of the comet is described, features diagnostic of the nature of tidal splitting are identified, and the implications for modelling the event are spelled out. Among the emphasized issues is the problem of secondary fragmentation, which documents the comet's continuing disintegration during 1992–94 and implies that in July 1992 the parent object split tidally near Jupiter into 10–12, not 21, major fragments. Also addressed are the controversies involving models of a strengthless agglomerate versus a discrete cohesive mass and estimates for the sizes of the progenitor and its fragments.

Introduction

Splitting is a relatively common phenomenon among comets, even though its detection is observationally difficult because companions are almost invariably very diffuse objects with considerable short-term brightness variations. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's behavior was generally less erratic than that of an average split comet, which may have in part been due to a major role of large-sized dust. The breakup products that contributed most significantly to the comet's total brightness are referred to below as components, or, because of their diffuse appearance, as condensations, both common terms of cometary phenomenology. The terms nuclei and fragments are instead reserved for genuine solid bodies of substantial dimensions (≳ 1 km across) that were “hidden” in the condensations.