(meteorobs) Repost- Clear evidence forMeteoroidejecta/outgassing.
Chris Peterson
clp at alumni.caltech.edu
Thu Sep 17 23:16:02 EDT 2009
Hi Thomas-
There's no reason to take anything in this discussion so personally. If
there's an interest in getting different kinds of meteor images, why not
talk about methods and their pros and cons?
Meteor images are not, for the most part, resolution limited by seeing, so
there's not much advantage to getting higher just to get above some of the
atmosphere. Meteor images are resolution limited by the need to use wide
field techniques in order to have any real chance of catching an event.
There is a technological solution, which is to detect a meteor with a wide
field system and then very rapidly bring a narrow field system into
position. Such systems now exist, and are not exceedingly complex or
expensive (a dedicated amateur could construct one).
There may also be inexpensive ways of monitoring the upper atmosphere, but
it's also likely that good information is already available- I just haven't
seen it, and since winds are currently the _best_ explanation for what is
seen in a few images, more information about mesospheric winds- from
existing monitoring efforts- would be welcome.
All I asked with respect to putting a camera on a balloon and sending it to
the lower stratosphere was, what is the value? We already know that catching
a good meteor at moderate resolution- even during a strong shower- is pretty
rare. How many balloon flights does it take to get one? Will the result
offer any more detail than a camera on the ground provides?
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: Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Repost- Clear evidence
forMeteoroidejecta/outgassing.
> Chris
> What you are taking about is outside the means of most meteor observers.
> Your view is a great ideas.Full coverage of the upper atmospheric
> condition with radar which would produce data for a ground based observer
> to have access to would cost millions of dollar.Are you saying that
> getting closing to a meteor event would have zero value even if it gets
> you only 30% closer?How many on this group could afford such high speed
> imaging equipment much less radar?I was just trying to put out a low cost
> idea that may or may not resolve the issue at hand.Sorry for being a
> hertic of the main stream experts on this group.I will gladly withdraw and
> will remain silent.
> Regards
> Thomas
More information about the Meteorobs
mailing list