Meteor skipping off the atmosphere or something different?

weather.com...

I hope this link works for most of you.

Here you see an object claiming to be a meteor burning through the atmosphere very slowly, then going back up on an arch and returning back to space.

The issues I have with their statement is the facts.

A: How slow it is moving. How can it have enough speed to go back up?
B: How can they say its a meteor when there is no evidence left behind to confirm this?
Did they go to space to retrieve that exact rock?
No. Its a guess or speculation at best.

What do you all think?
I'm not discounting the possibility that such a thing is possible, given the right conditions being met. Like angle and speed.
But this one does not appear to fit that criteria at all.

a reply to: kiliker30

Link works that was an odd trajectory. Waiting for our man Phage to show.

"Bounce" was the wrong word, they must have been referring to "graze", where an object barely misses the planet but slows in the upper atmosphere yet still retains enough forward speed to keep going on course and pass back into space. "Bounce" implies the path turned upwards, it didn't. The most famous case was that 'Rocky Mountain Meteor" in he early 1970s.

To 'bounce' would require some 'lift' generated, as the Apollo capsules could do. Meteoroids don't do that. Sloppy writing.

originally posted by: kiliker30
A: How slow it is moving. How can it have enough speed to go back up?

We see only an edited version of the video, so we cannot know if that speed is the original or not. Besides that, as we don't know the distance to the object we cannot know if it travelled a long distance during those 10 or so seconds we see it or if it was a (relatively) short distance, so we cannot know its real velocity.

B: How can they say its a meteor when there is no evidence left behind to confirm this?
Did they go to space to retrieve that exact rock?
No. Its a guess or speculation at best.

Meteor: a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light.

So, the video does show a meteor. If it had fallen to the ground it would become a meteorite (or a crashed craft), but while crossing the atmosphere and creating a incandescent trail it's a meteor.

A meteoroid is the object that creates a meteor, so they are right in calling it the object a "meteoroid".

What do you all think?
I'm not discounting the possibility that such a thing is possible, given the right conditions being met. Like angle and speed.
But this one does not appear to fit that criteria at all.

I think the trajectory we see on the video may be a result of the type of lens on that camera converting a straight line or a slightly downward curve into a upward curve.

a reply to: kiliker30

Odd trajectory for sure.
But entirely possible.

Looks like it was a meteor all right it did not bounce however just a fly by. Looks like if came in at a low angle and the lens on the camera is a fisheye lens that's why you see that strange curve. If you saw it live you would not have seen a curve.

All great points,
Youre all right, it appears that the camera lense could be fish eye making it seem like it curves when it is instead going straight through.
And it could be slowed down frame rate.

If these arnt the case though?
Then a mystery for sure.
But it does seem the latter is more plausible.
Thanks for the insight.

a reply to: kiliker30



*%^& derivative?

Looking at the landscape at the bottom of the frame, it appears that the camera could be a fisheye.

If that were the case, then the trajectory may not be curved at all.

In 1999 or 2000 in Northern Virginia, November at 11:00 pm, I watched a meteorite enter the atmosphere It was yellow, orange, red, green, and blue in a matter of two to three seconds. Zipping fast into the planet. I have a hard time believing a huge chunk of iron, with other heavy metals, and gemstones would bounce back up. Gravity pulls things in, all day everyday. I was an OSU astronomy student in 1980s. They never said the meteorites go back into space. It would have to hit something like a cloaked UFO, or it was a UFO. The professor did believe in extraterrestrial life in the universe to a very high unimaginable number. I really don't think humans are that smart, especially after watching the Presidential debate last night. So... any other beings smarter than us is highly possible.

Very plausible, as a matter of fact they were worried that Apollo 13 would do the exact thing..skip off the atmosphere and go right back into space on some trajectory that would have sent them somewhere to eventually meet up with Elons starman.


www.universetoday.com...

Animation of what could have happened to Apollo 13
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg
"Bounce" was the wrong word, they must have been referring to "graze", where an object barely misses the planet but slows in the upper atmosphere yet still retains enough forward speed to keep going on course and pass back into space. "Bounce" implies the path turned upwards, it didn't. The most famous case was that 'Rocky Mountain Meteor" in he early 1970s.

To 'bounce' would require some 'lift' generated, as the Apollo capsules could do. Meteoroids don't do that. Sloppy writing.

Do you have a link? I've looked on the internet but only get links to the Perseid meteor showers in the Rocky Mountains.

Here's a detailed account of it.
sattrackcam.blogspot.com... waI

a reply to: JimOberg
So its saying an object 20-40 centermeters hit the atmosphere fast enough to start burning but didn't slow down at all from any of that? And passed right through and kept on going?
20-40cm??
So essentially a tiny pebble was able to punch through the earths atmosphere unaffected by our 3g gravity pull. Ok.
Either I've been lied to about physics all my life or that is a ridiculous story.

originally posted by: kiliker30
a reply to: JimOberg
So its saying an object 20-40 centermeters hit the atmosphere fast enough to start burning but didn't slow down at all from any of that? And passed right through and kept on going?
20-40cm??
So essentially a tiny pebble was able to punch through the earths atmosphere unaffected by our 3g gravity pull. Ok.
Either I've been lied to about physics all my life or that is a ridiculous story.

First im not sure what 3g gravity is so i will just ignore that. Let's discuss gravity you seem to be under the impression the size makes a difference it doesnt the faster an object moves the more energy it has. For example a bullet remains in the air until its velocity slows enough for it to hit the ground.

If an object is moving fast enough it will always leave earth. In fact it needs to travel faster then 11.19 km/s. So this means as long as its faster it will never return to earth.

Just so you know on an average asteroids travel between 18 km/s to about 30 km/s needless to say they are moving really fast. The fastest i coud find was 72 km/s needess to say not something you want hitting us.

a reply to: kiliker30

As stated, the object has a very shallow angle with earths atmosphere. So it only goes through the upper part, where as you should know, the air is very thin. So not a lot of friction up there, but still enough to light it up in the sky because it is moving fast, like miles per second fast.
Now, because of the shallow angle and the resistance the object recieves from the atmosphere it is literally pushed back into space.

And I doubt someone was lying, you probably weren't paying attention in class. Because the earths gravity pull is exactly 1 g

a reply to: kiliker30

perhaps it was big enough or solid enough to just clip the edge of the atmosphere and keep going...

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: kiliker30

....
Now, because of the shallow angle and the resistance the object recieves from the atmosphere it is literally pushed back into space.

.....

no... no ......... no ... no
... no ..... no .......... no.................no
NO.

Nothing pushes it back into space. Its own forward momentum, reduced by a few seconds of air drag, carries it straight ahead. Gravity also does bend the path slightly 'down', but the speed is still great enough to escape.

Apollo was in danger of 'bouncing' mostly from sensationalized news media, but since the spacecraft had a small amount of aerodynamic lift, it was theoretically possible under very narrow conditions.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If that were the case, then the trajectory may not be curved at all.

Brilliant, I bet you nailed it Holmes.

a reply to: kiliker30

Not lied to, you just didn't understand it. Gravity is a weak force, you counteract it everyday. An object going fast enough will pass us by quite happily. The upper atmosphere is very thin, nothing like what it is at ground level.

Think of it like a car going through a shallow puddle. It will have negligible effect on the car's forward motion, but there would still be an observable effect in thre form of a splash.