It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Utah meteor?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Truther
 


The pic in your KSL link is not the actual event. It is a NASA file photo. I've still not seen an actual pic of the Utah event yet....




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
First of all, the photo the OP included in his first post is not of a meteor. It's a jet contrail lit by the sun.



Originally posted by apolluwn
Daytime fireball from 1998 Leonid Meteor shower (early morning this is more accurate as to what it might have looked like):



My belief is that some people made it out to be more than it was...

[edit on 6/11/2008 by apolluwn]


The above photo is a meteor, but it's not a "daytime" fireball. This photo was taken during the night.

Regarding the Utah event, you are unlikely to see a photo since even slow meteors are really visible for more than a second or two. You would either have to be extremely lucky and have a camera already running to catch it, otherwise there simply is no time to set up a camera in time to get a shot off.

There are all-sky camera networks which are used to monitor the sky for fireballs like this, but as far as I'm aware, none of them captured this particular event.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Hi Truther. Yep, it's too bad no one has an image or footage of this. I'm sure that it would have been an incredible sight. You have to remember that most meteors are no larger than a grain of sand. One the size of just a pebble can create an awesome light show. This one sounds as if it could have been a decent size, but not surprising at all that it would have burned up in the atmosphere before impacting. Some call those "earth-grazers".

What's really interesting is the fact the it is estimated that thousands of tons of space material falls to earth everyday.


It is estimated that 1,000 tons to more than 10,000 tons of interplanetary material falls on the Earth each day. Most of this material is very tiny in the form of micrometeoroids or dust-like grains a few micrometers in size. These particles are so tiny that the air resistance is enough to slow them sufficiently that they do not burn up, but rather fall gently to Earth.


linky

Anyway, that was just a side note.

Rush



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


First, I already explained what his picture was. You are wrong.

As for my picture, no, I am sorry. That is an early morning "fireball". This is a magnitude -3. The Utah "fireball" was a possible -5, and was seen around 6:45am in December. You know they have data when the sunrise was right?

Utah Sunrise:


Dec 8, 2006 7:39 AM 5:00 PM 9h 20m 40s − 0m 53s 12:19 PM 26.5° 147.346



Denver Sunrise


Dec 8, 2006 7:08 AM 4:35 PM 9h 26m 57s − 0m 51s 11:52 AM 27.6° 147.346


[edit on 6/11/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by apolluwn
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


First, I already explained what his picture was. You are wrong.


Eh? How am I wrong? Explain please? Got any evidence/links to back up that statement?



Originally posted by apolluwn
As for my picture, no, I am sorry. That is an early morning "fireball".


Yes, "early morning " being at night, ie before sunrise/dawn. Here is what NASA says about it:


Many of the 1998 Leonid shower meteors were so bright they could be seen even during sunrise. The above photograph was taken near the dawn of November 16 close to Hong Kong, China.

source

Note the words "near the dawn" ...and that it only says "Many of the 1998 Leonid shower meteors were so bright they could be seen even during sunrise" not "This meteor was so bright it could be photogrpahed even during sunrise"


Also note the many streaked stars in the photograph, which would not be possible to photograph if it were anywhere near dawn. Don't take it from me, ask any experienced astrophotographer.

Also note the light pollution (yellow stuff) which would not be viable unless this was taken well before dawn.

The Utah fireball on the other hand, was a daylight event, ie after dawn, blue sky. The difference is literally the difference between night and day!

As I said before, you will not find still photos of this fireball, in fact you'll be lucky to find stills of any "actual" daylight fireball, for the reasons I gave in my previous post above (plus more which I won't go into here), and I don't mean stills taken from movie footage!

If you ask me nicely though, I might send you a photo I took of a dawn (literally) fireball taken in November 2001, if I can find it. It's not very much to look at though. It certainly looks like none of the photos on this thread, as I had to over-expose most of the sky to even stand a slim chance of getting it.

There may be a slim chance that someone caught the Utah event by complete accident on a video/surveillance camera, like the big Australian fireball a couple of years back. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it though...


Originally posted by apolluwn
This is a magnitude -3. The Utah "fireball" was a possible -5, and was seen around 6:45am in December.

What has that got to do with anything, apart from -5 being a poor excuse for a fireball?


Originally posted by apolluwn
You know they have data when the sunrise was right?

Utah Sunrise:


Dec 8, 2006 7:39 AM 5:00 PM 9h 20m 40s − 0m 53s 12:19 PM 26.5° 147.346



Denver Sunrise


Dec 8, 2006 7:08 AM 4:35 PM 9h 26m 57s − 0m 51s 11:52 AM 27.6° 147.346



What point exactly are you arguing?

[edit on 11-6-2008 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
awesome pic despite all the talk going on about it. what a spectacular sight, but i am sure it would have freaked me out at first



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 





Eh? How am I wrong? Explain please? Got any evidence/links to back up that statement?


I posted the link to the article about this photograph. It is photograph of a meteor taken in the UK in 2003 and the article is the BBC article I linked to in this post. There is no need for me to redundantly post this article again... If this article is incorrect, can you please provide evidence to the contrary?




Yes, "early morning " being at night, ie before sunrise/dawn.


What is being argued here exactly? Is it that I worded the description of this photo linked in my original post incorrectly at 3:37AM? I agree. I incorrectly called it daytime, but it is during dawn as I understand the definition; Light being in the sky from the sun before sunrise. Sunrise being when you can see the sun above the horizon.

I don't see how this photograph wouldn't be similar to what would have been seen in Utah based on this.

I admit that I misread your original post. I think this may have caused some confusion (certainly with me and you seemed to be wondering what the hell I was babbling about). I am sorry for that. I probably shouldn't respond to posts right before I go to work.




If you ask me nicely though, I might send you a photo I took of a dawn (literally) fireball taken in November 2001, if I can find it.


If you come across it, I'd love to see it. I think we may be interpreting "dawn" in different ways.



What point exactly are you arguing?


I was saying that the meteoroid was reported at the earliest at 6:45AM in Utah. The sun rose at 7:39AM in Utah that day. The meteor would not have been seen at sunrise unless it was viewable for an exceptionally long time. In fact, much longer than any I've ever heard about being recorded. Do you know of any offhand?

In Colorado, it would probably have been around during sunrise, but I don't believe it would have been around by the time the sun rose in Utah.

So... I believe the photograph of the Leonid Meteoroid is an accurate depiction of what this event could have looked like (in Utah).

[edit on 6/12/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by apolluwn

I posted the link to the article about this photograph. It is photograph of a meteor taken in the UK in 2003 and the article is the BBC article I linked to in this post. There is no need for me to redundantly post this article again... If this article is incorrect, can you please provide evidence to the contrary?


Yes, I agree with you that this photo was misleading, if that's what you're saying... but it's misleading in 2 ways:

First that it is not of the Utah event, and secondly because the photo is not a photograph of a meteor at all:


What is it? Experts disagree. The first guess was a sofa-sized rock that exploded as a daytime fireball, but perhaps a better hypothesis is an unusual airplane contrail reflecting the setting Sun.

source

For the record, if there are any "experts" that still think it's a photo of the aftermath of a meteor, they are wrong. Those who would know, the meteor observing community, have come to the consensus that this was a con-trail from an aircraft. I have seen enough meteors and con-trails to know that this is the correct conclusion, but you'll have to take my word for that.

If you compare many images of persistent trains caused by known meteors, with many images of sun-lit con-trails form aircraft you would also agree I'm sure. There are superficial similarities, yes, but anyone who has spent time investigating this subject in depth like I have, will tell you the same.



Originally posted by apolluwn
What is being argued here exactly? Is it that I worded the description of this photo linked in my original post incorrectly at 3:37AM? I agree. I incorrectly called it daytime, but it is during dawn as I understand the definition; Light being in the sky from the sun before sunrise. Sunrise being when you can see the sun above the horizon.

I don't see how this photograph wouldn't be similar to what would have been seen in Utah based on this.


The only issue that I had with what you said before, was that the photo you presented to us was " an example of what the Utah event would have looked like", but this is not so. There is quite a difference between the conditions under which that photo was taken, and the conditions under which the Utah even was observed...

Your understanding of the terms is not far off I think, but I'm not sure u realize just how much different the sky would have looked under each set of circumstances. As I said before, the timing of the Utah even would have meant that the sky would be blue, and no starts could be seen in it. With the Leonid 98 meteor photo, the sky at the time would have appeared pitch-black and full of stars.

It's a small nit pic I know, but if you're gonna say "this is what the event probably looked like", then at least try to get it right




Originally posted by apolluwn
I admit that I misread your original post. I think this may have caused some confusion (certainly with me and you seemed to be wondering what the hell I was babbling about). I am sorry for that. I probably shouldn't respond to posts right before I go to work.



No problem. It happens from time to time...


Originally posted by apolluwn
If you come across it, I'd love to see it. I think we may be interpreting "dawn" in different ways.


I'll try and dig it out in the next day or two. I'll have to scan it (it's a transparency), but that shouldn't be a problem, apart from I haven't scanned anything for about 4 or 5 years now (gone digital now) so I hope everything still works...


Originally posted by apolluwn
I was saying that the meteoroid was reported at the earliest at 6:45AM in Utah. The sun rose at 7:39AM in Utah that day. The meteor would not have been seen at sunrise unless it was viewable for an exceptionally long time. In fact, much longer than any I've ever heard about being recorded. Do you know of any offhand?

In Colorado, it would probably have been around during sunrise, but I don't believe it would have been around by the time the sun rose in Utah.

So... I believe the photograph of the Leonid Meteoroid is an accurate depiction of what this event could have looked like (in Utah).

[edit on 6/12/2008 by apolluwn]



Ahhh - ok... it may have been me who got the "wrong end of the stick" then... I had not noticed an actual time for the Utah event, but what I had picked up on was that it was said to be a "daylight" event.

If that time is accurate, then these two "facts" are mutually exclusive. "Daylight" implies that the sun was on or above the horizon at the time.But, if the event was really at 6:45AM, which is more than 1 hour before sunrise, then the sky would have effectively been dark!

Unfortunately, after checking my planetarium software, it appears that sunrise was actually @ around 4:50AM in Utah. In other words, this was a true daylight event if that 6:45AM time is correct, so I stand behind my argument.

Regarding the longest time a meteor has been observed for, past digging (for a previous ATS thread) indicates that the record is held by the Peeskill fireball, which IIRC was observed for between about 40-55 seconds. Basically, that's about as slow as meteors get. Physics prevents meteors being visible for much longer than this, since there is a set minimum atmospheric entry velocity (around 10Km/s) for objects hitting the atmosphere.

There's no way that a meteor could be visible for over an hour. Simply put, it's a physical impossibility (at least in this universe!).



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.

The famous 1972 daylight meteor film...




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.

The famous 1972 daylight meteor film...


I nearly posted it, but decided not to in the end. Thanks for posting it.

It's probably the closest thing to what someone in Utah might have seen, although the Great Lakes fireball as it's know was probably a good deal brighter than the Utah event!



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I saw a daytime meteor once. Freaked me out, for a minute or two.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


Ok I dug out the film (negative, not transparency as I said before) and fired up the scanner, and here's what came out:



100% crop:



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Yes, I agree with you that this photo was misleading, if that's what you're saying... but it's misleading in 2 ways:

First that it is not of the Utah event, and secondly because the photo is not a photograph of a meteor at all


Thank you for the information. I read in the article that it was sent to NASA (I believe but it may have been a different source). I didn't even bother to see what NASA said since one of the articles the OP used to back up the claim that this was the Utah event used this picture with the source cited as NASA.

This was foolish since I already knew there was a mistake on their part, but I appreciate you clearing this up. I never would have guessed that is what it actually was.

Just for the record... I never believed it was from Utah.



Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
The only issue that I had with what you said before, was that the photo you presented to us was " an example of what the Utah event would have looked like", but this is not so. There is quite a difference between the conditions under which that photo was taken, and the conditions under which the Utah even was observed...

Your understanding of the terms is not far off I think, but I'm not sure u realize just how much different the sky would have looked under each set of circumstances. As I said before, the timing of the Utah even would have meant that the sky would be blue, and no starts could be seen in it. With the Leonid 98 meteor photo, the sky at the time would have appeared pitch-black and full of stars.

It's a small nit pic I know, but if you're gonna say "this is what the event probably looked like", then at least try to get it right



I understand what you are saying. I think what got me was this was 6:45AM in December. I think I erroneously assumed it wouldn't be very light at all. After looking at the picture again I think this could just be light from a city perhaps.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Unfortunately, after checking my planetarium software, it appears that sunrise was actually @ around 4:50AM in Utah. In other words, this was a true daylight event if that 6:45AM time is correct, so I stand behind my argument.


I will take your word for it. I do think that 4:50AM does seem pretty early for sunrise in winter, though. I don't know why it was so far off on the websites I mentioned, but you seem to know what you are talking about.




Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Regarding the longest time a meteor has been observed for, past digging (for a previous ATS thread) indicates that the record is held by the Peeskill fireball, which IIRC was observed for between about 40-55 seconds. Basically, that's about as slow as meteors get. Physics prevents meteors being visible for much longer than this, since there is a set minimum atmospheric entry velocity (around 10Km/s) for objects hitting the atmosphere.


I thought I remember reading some time ago that it depended on the trajectory through the atmosphere because of the speed the planet rotates. Do you know if there is any validity to this, or am I just pulling this out of my butt?


[edit on 6/12/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 



Oh, good picture. It is certainly interesting to see an actual "dawn fireball". It looks like you went to great length's to try and make sure you captured this and despite any problems with the actual picture it is nice to get a better idea of what a meteoroid looks like when it is starting to get light outside.


I hope I didn't offend you initially. It wasn't my intent to do so if this was the case. I think you have added a lot of good information to this thread and certainly put me squarely in my place.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Back in the 80's I took my fiance to debonney winery (sp?) out in Perry Township for the persiedes meteor shower. God's country, no city lights.
At twilight, with the sky still orange, we and the others at the pavillion saw the most amazing bolide I have ever seen. Like fourth of July. Oohs and ahs.
At nightfall we took a bottle of chardoney with us and some blankets to camp out in the vineyards. It was a good show, about 4 to 5 a minute.
You could hear a pindrop a mile away. Around midnight another spectacular bolide passed and we both heard it go 'shhhhhhh' thru the air. We both looked at each other at same time and asked 'did you hear that!?'



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by apolluwn
Thank you for the information. I read in the article that it was sent to NASA (I believe but it may have been a different source). I didn't even bother to see what NASA said since one of the articles the OP used to back up the claim that this was the Utah event used this picture with the source cited as NASA.

This was foolish since I already knew there was a mistake on their part, but I appreciate you clearing this up. I never would have guessed that is what it actually was.

Just for the record... I never believed it was from Utah.



You're welcome apolluwn


I too have fallen into that trap, on occasion. You're not alone. I only try and point out mistakes where I see them, so as all who read can arm themselves with hard facts and info to use in the war against ignorance.


Originally posted by apolluwn
I understand what you are saying. I think what got me was this was 6:45AM in December. I think I erroneously assumed it wouldn't be very light at all. After looking at the picture again I think this could just be light from a city perhaps.


Yes. You are correct. The light pollution appears to be coming from behind the mountain. This is classic example of "sky glow" caused by low pressure sodium street lighting (yerllow-orange color), most probably that is Hong Kong's light. I am surprised there is even a hint of dark sky there to be honest, seemingly so close to a major conurbation, and with an apparently quite long exposure judging by the trailing of the stars (I would guess 1-3 minutes). There must still have been at least 20 - 30 minutes before sunrise, or some blue would probably have been starting to creep into the sky.

Compare that with my shot, which was something like a 1sec exposure, and you can see how I was fighting over exposure in the direction where the sun was about to rise, and the rest of my sky is mid-tone - deep blue. Just a few seconds (minutes at most) later, and the sun would be starting to rise above the horizon

If I had turned around through 180 degrees and shot in that direction instead with the same exposure, there would have been a few bright stars visible and the sky would have come out almost black, with maybe a touch of blue creeping in at the top, since I was using a wide-ish angle lens.


Originally posted by apolluwn
I will take your word for it. I do think that 4:50AM does seem pretty early for sunrise in winter, though. I don't know why it was so far off on the websites I mentioned, but you seem to know what you are talking about.



Well, I double checked, using a hypothetical observing location in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 9th June 08, and sunrise is @ 4:54AM according to the software I use. I'm sure someone else will confirm



Originally posted by apolluwn
I thought I remember reading some time ago that it depended on the trajectory through the atmosphere because of the speed the planet rotates. Do you know if there is any validity to this, or am I just pulling this out of my butt?



Not quite, but you're on the right track.

If you consider both our Earth and another object such as a meteoroid each in their own separate orbits around the sun, you can have two distinctly different scenarios occurring depending on the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation relative to the other object in orbit round the sun.

For example, in scenario 1 you have a Leonid. The orbit of the parent body (Tempel-Tuttle in the case of the Leonids), is in the opposite direction to Earth's rotation around the sun, meaning the individual meteoroids, when they are ejected are also traveling in similar orbits to their parent body, with the result that when orbits of the parent body/meteoroid and Earth intersect the meteoroid slams into Earth's atmosphere at tremendous velocity, a bit like a head-on crash, and just as in a head on smash, you combine the velocities of the object involved to give you the entry velocity which is about 74km/s in the case of a Leonid.

Here is a short animation which may or may not help you with visualizing the above scenario. It's actually designed to demonstrate how the concept of "shower radiant" works in the case of the Leonids:
www.sendspace.com...

In scenario 2 you have meteoroids which are in orbits around the sun that are in the same direction as Earth orbits the sun, meaning that in order to enter Earth's atmosphere they have to catch up to Earth, and because of this the entry velocity is given by subtracting one from the other. Examples of slow meteors like this would be the Peeskill fireball and the Great Lakes fireball vid which IAttckPeople posted above.

As far as the trajectory/inclination of the object in Earth's atmosphere, if that's what you mean, together with the composition of the object (and not forgetting the velocity), it has a profound effect on the potential behavior of the object.

For instance, going back to our favorite Great Lakes fireball of 1972, which most agree was a case in which the object was of a fairly solid composition, and had a low enough entry angle that it just skimmed the upper atmosphere, a little like a flat stone bouncing across the surface of a pond. In this extreme case, the big rock (an asteroid estimated to be the size of a small city block I think - a large building at the very least) bounced off back into space, and could well come back for an encore in the future at some point!

In the GLF case, if the angle it had come in at had been much lower, it would have impacted, and caused a major disaster if it was in an urban area, but in the case of much smaller objects, weighing less than around 1 tonne, they will either leave behind a meteorite, in the case of solid stony/iron meteorites if the entry angle is between 0-4 degrees. Any higher and they will either completely burn up, or disintegrate, sometimes in spectacular fashion like Tunguska, or the Tagish Lake fireball/meteorite which were thought to have been made of relatively fragile material.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by apolluwn
 


Thank you apolluwn. If you call flying half way round the world, sitting outside all night, and being the last one to stop clicking my shutter out of a group of perhaps 80-100 observers/photographers/camera men, going to great lengths, then yes I did go to great lenghts. Well worth it though


Strictly speaking, you should of course look to videos to get a better idea of what meteors really look like (or even better, go out side and look yourself!), since a still photograph of a meteor is only a trail on film or a sensor. In real life, meteors appear to be bright stars or balls of light sometimes with a tail, and sometimes not. In some cases, bright meteors can leave persistent trains in the air for many minutes, and perhaps up to an hour in some exceptional fireball events.

My tip to you - get your calender out and circle the night/morning of the 12/13 of August, which is the peak night of the Perseids. Keep an eye on the space exploration forum closer to the time for further info/tips


Perseids are super fast meteors like the Leonids, and can be very impressive if you catch them on a good night, but if you want to see some beautiful super slow meteors for comparison, you will have to wait for the Taurids (Nov. 4-7 peak).

Edit to add - No offence taken


[edit on 13-6-2008 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Very informative post, C.H.U.D.

I don't mind being shown that I am wrong in the least bit; especially when so much information is provided. Thank you for taking the time to explain it so well.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Well, I double checked, using a hypothetical observing location in Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 9th June 08, and sunrise is @ 4:54AM according to the software I use. I'm sure someone else will confirm



Ah, I believe I see where the confusion is arising now. You are referring to the dates from the KSL article.

I believe they are reporting on the same incident as the Rocky Mountain News article which actually happened on December 8, 2006.

This article is not only using a bogus picture, but it is also talking about an event that took place almost a year and a half ago with no mention of this fact. There wasn't a recent one was there?

If there was, I was referring to the 2006 incident and not a more recent event.

Would it be too much trouble for you to check your software to see when the sun rose on Dec. 8, 2006 just so I have an idea if the websites reporting 7:39AM were correct?

If it is I find it very strange that it would be reported as "bright enough to be seen during the day" and "as bright as the moon" by someone that didn't witness it and was described by an eyewitness in Utah as


"It would compare to landing lights on an aircraft," he said. "Noticeably bright but not brilliant."


Of course, I guess it could have appeared dimmer at first and come back for a real show later like you mentioned since the "expert" Peterson was located in Colorado and not Utah, but this really just seems like a poorly written article.

for both of these articles.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by apolluwn]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


jpm,

Thanks for sharing your anecdote. Sounds like the classic Perseids show on an good night! I bet that bolide left a train hanging in the sky for quite a while!

Did you know that quite a few people, including myself have heard sounds at the same time or just prior to seeing a meteor?

A few years back I saw a Perseid cast shadows on my surroundings, like no other since the Leonid 98 bolide-blitz! It's a shower I try to observe every year without fail, and this year will be no exception



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Hi OP,

The photo you posted isn"t even from a meteor but a contrail seen at sunset or early in
the morning.

Since you don't even see the difference, I presume you know nothing about this subject.
Am I right ?


Buck



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join