Tom Van Flandern writes:

The Satellite Model for comets, a competitor of the Dirty Snowball
model and a corollary of the exploded planet hypothesis (EPH), makes a
very specific prediction that the comet nucleus is a solid rocky
asteroid.

Solid rocky asteroids do not produce comae and tails, Van Flandern.
That simple visual distinction between comets and asteroids has been
around for decades. You are aware of the June 14 outburst, are you
not? Rocky asteroids don't have those.

The Dirty Snowball model itself makes no specific prediction
(although individual advocates are betting on various possible
outcomes), but instead has an accommodation ready for whatever is found.
In science, this is known as "shooting an arrow into a target, then
painting a bull's eye around the arrow"

Sort of like the EPH predicting satellites of all sizes around Eros,
finding none, and then painting the EPH around the boulders found on
the surface. Ostensibly due to the unstable nature of some of the
orbits around an oddly shaped body. Except that the odd shape had
been known for decades, and the instability of some of the orbits
almost as long. Did the EPH predict nothing in the stable orbits?

Within a few days, after the dust settles, we'll have important new
data about the origin and nature of comets, and about which of the
current models does the best job. -|Tom|-

Assuming the experiment succeeds. Consider the possibility that the
autonavigation system is taken out by a large particle hit at too
great a distance for a purely ballistic trajectory to guarantee an
impact.