(meteorobs) Correction to previous Trig.calculation.

[stange34 at sbcglobal.net]

If I can chip in here, arguably Chri's substantial background & knowledge 
forming his conclusion is most likely what happened with this meteor.

I can only cite the unusual (post-time) persistance of the meteor and 
secondly, without an abrupt velocity change, I cannot envision any way to 
distinguish a meteor cooling down from one that is slowly burning up on a 
camera image.

I am on a weak limb here and acknowlege it, but hope to learn from this 
event.

Larry
YCSentinel



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Peterson" <clp at alumni.caltech.edu>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: 2007/09/19 07:15
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Correction to previous Trig.calculation.


> Thomas-
>
> I make no claim of knowing the trajectory of this fireball beyond an 
> approximate ground path. I have recorded a number of similar fireballs 
> over the years which had typical descent angles (that is, weren't 
> grazers). The light curve of this event was typical of many meteors- 
> nothing about it suggests to me that it skimmed the atmosphere. There 
> seems to me very little reason to suggest that possibility. The absence of 
> images from the Colorado cameras proves nothing, but has to be considered 
> seriously. These cameras routinely record high meteors as far south as 
> Albuquerque; since the weather was apparently clear that morning, the fact 
> that none of the cameras caught it is evidence that the meteor was quite 
> low at the end of its path. Furthermore, the camera evidence indicates 
> that the total ground path of this fireball was fairly short- probably 
> less than 500 km. That is far too short to explain the light curve if this 
> was an Earth skimmer, given that over that distance the height difference 
> between the endpoints and center amounts to only about 4 km. Compare that 
> with a known Earth grazer, the Grand Teton fireball, which had a ground 
> path of at least 1500 km- enough to get it deep enough into the atmosphere 
> to experience strong ablation.
>
> Chris
>
> *****************************************
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Thomas Dorman" <drygulch_99 at yahoo.com>
> To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:47 AM
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Correction to previous Trig.calculation.
>
>
> Chris
> As I stated before the true story will only be told on
> this event only after the calculation are done.Your
> argument seems to be based on no more,in my view,that
> your station did not record the event.There could be
> many other reason why it was not recorded at your
> location.Mr.Gamble at the El Paso all sky camera
> station has had events in the past that were recorded
> by Albuquerque station that one would think he should
> have recorded at his station but found nothing in his
> records.
> As to the statement the meteor lost mass in the
> event.True, but without knowing how deep the meteor
> came into the atmosphere any guess on the mass of this
> beast at this time is just that a guess. I believe no
> one at this time can make a true statement to if this
> meteor had the mass to survive the passage through the
> atmosphere back into space.
> Just my view on this matter.Not an expert,just a
> skywatcher.
> Thomas Dorman
> Horizon City,Texas
>
> ---
> Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>