Originally posted by pseudotro
I would imagine anything burning and flying would leave some sort of trail? I dunno seems sort of self evident no?
Yes, that is true, but it's a rather simplistic view, and there are other factors to consider.
For starters, the vast majority of atmosphere has too little oxygen to support combustion. Even at relatively low altitude (compared to that at which
meteors are visible) it's impossible to get things to burn, unless they already have an oxidizing agent included as a source of oxygen - At the height
of Everest (5 km above sea level approx), the oxygen is already too thin.
Instead of burning, there is a rather different process at work, that is known as "ablation". Ablation is due to the velocity of the meteoroid, which
slams into atmospheric gas molecules, heating the meteoroid, and stripping away parts of it.
The result is a self luminous plasma, which is responsible for the majority of light produced by a meteor, and also for the train or wake. Note that
this is a different kind of train to the dust-trail which has to be sun-lit to be visible (refer back to the link in my previous post regarding types
of train/trail/wake).
Here is a paper with some info on current theories
Mass Loss Due to Sputtering and Thermal
Processes in Meteoroid Ablation
The point is that, depending on. the objects speed (ablation ceases once an object slows down to around 3-4 km/s), and also the conditions under which
the meteor is seen (eg at dusk/dawn, when the upper layers of our atmosphere are still lit by sunlight),
different kinds of trail may or may
not be visible.
Let's not forget that the material that the object is made of will also be a factor. For example, the heat--resistant tiles on the space shuttle, are
able to resist ablation, but there will always be a wake or trail of ionized atmospheric gas produced at speeds above the "retardation point" (3-4
km/s), although weather or not this is visible depends on the conditions.
In the case of the NZ fireball, we are only seeing the "dust train" because it is lit by the sun. Had the event occurred a long time after sunset,
when the sun was well below the horizon, the train seen in the footage would probably not be visible, although the plasma train would be more visible
thanks to a darker sky, but they usually don't last as long as dust trains.
Originally posted by pseudotro
I have only seen this type of thing at night. I can say that it is very hard to tell distance, speed and size in the heat of the moment.
Absolutely. If you look at reports of previous fireballs, it's
common for people to seriously under or over estimate all of the aspects you
mentioned, and more. I looked at just one example in
this thread, but many other
examples can be found if you have the time to search through fireball reports.
That said, we do know quite a bit about these vital statistics thanks to both photographs and video footage taken over the previous 150 years
(approx). It should be possible to glean a surprising amount of information from photographs and footage of the event, especially if photographed from
geographic locations separated by at least a few tens of km, rough orbits and ground paths/entry angle can usually be worked out.
Originally posted by pseudotro
I'm not at all surprised that there is so much confusion and varied reports.
I guess it goes with the territory. The vast majority of people have never seen a fireball, let alone a bright fireball like the NZ fireball. Most
people have seen a "shooting star" (or "meteor") or two before, but comparing meteors to bright fireballs is like comparing apples to oranges. It does
not help that there are many public misconceptions and little or no education on the subject.
Add to that, these things are literally a "bolt out of the blue", and you are bound to have a bunch of shocked/and or confused people.
edit on 4-4-2012 by FireballStorm because: clarification