(meteorobs) Whitmire, SC likely fall location

[Jake S]

The data from the seismographs, coupled with the allsky camera lead to an
estimated trajectory that does point towards those radar hits. They are
definitely within the uncertainty/error bounds.


On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mike Hankey <mike.hankey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Rob,
>
> If you wouldn't mind sending me the kmzs for this, i'm interested to see
> what a good meteorite return looks like.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Matson, Robert D.
> <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I found the confirming radar hits (from two radars) yesterday
>> afternoon -- I can send the .KMZ files to anyone that is
>> interested. They are definitely associated with the fall.
>> The reflectivity, velocity and spectral returns all have
>> the "candystriping" that Marc Fries and I have come to
>> associate with past confirmed meteorite falls.
>>
>> The location is not as bad as it could be. Yes, lots of
>> forest, but also many cleared areas due to the nearby
>> town of Whitmire, SC.  --Rob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org on behalf of Esko Lyytinen
>> Sent: Wed 2/15/2012 2:57 AM
>> To: Meteor science and meteor observing
>> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) [meteorite-list] GA SC Bolide seems have
produced
>> a large rock
>>
>>
>> I made a one station analysis of the Lawndale camera video.
>>
>> The camera was calibrated with eight found stars. And a number of frames
>> were manually measured.
>> A direct fit to the timed directions gives the apparent entry direction
>> approximately. In this a reasonable looking deceleration was taken into
>> account.
>> Some level "scaling" can be got by means of an assumed beginning height,
>> consistent with the resulting velocity, with a few iterations.
>> I get it arriving form az-direction around 315 or 325 . The entry
>> velocity seems to be about 13 km/s having then he beginning height at
>> around 80 or 85 km.
>>
>> The reulting landing site from this model is very close to Jake's
>> southers radar "group". I tried a further velocity (and connected
>> beginnig height fit) and with the entry velocity of 13.4 km/s (in this
>> model arriving from direction 319) with resulting beginning height of
>> about 85 km. Now there is an almost exact hit! The end height in this is
>> 26 km. Camera calibration at low elevation angles may be not so good
>> affecting some uncertainty to this.
>> Also a resonable rough dark flight was modeled. In this the landing is
>> 13.8 km before the sea-level crossing of the direct track.
>> Then the prediction from this would be a few kilometer to the West of
>> the radar hits.
>>
>> Wind effects are not taken into account and may well affect this.
>> Just now the server in Wyoming tell
>>
>> "Sorry, the server is too busy to process your request.
>> Please try again later."
>>
>> when trying to get the atmospheric sounding data.
>>
>> I am practically confident that these "southern" radar hits are from
>> this. It would be good to know the exact time of the radar hits.
>> In my opinion the northern hit it less probabaly from this.
>>
>> No reliable end deceleration is derived from this. And from only one
>> station data, this may not be got quite reilably. Ablation model would
>> give a reasonable end mass for this velocity and end height of around 5
>> kg (if OC). But if this was strongly fragmented in early flight, as may
>> well have happened, considering the bright flashing, this mass value may
>> rather suit to the biggest mass(es) and the total end mass may be bigger.
>>
>> The fall-time to the radar height would be telling on the masses of
these.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Esko
>>
>>
>> > Here is my analysis of this meteor:
>> >
>> > http://3dradar.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/sc-2132012-at-642-utc/
>> >
>> > I think there is a chance there could be meteorites from this event. I
>> > think it is highly misleading to say it "produced a large meteorite"
>> > when nothing has been found yet...
>> >
>> > I think the radar hits probably need further scrutiny (Marc Fries, Rob
>> > Matson?) but it seems from what I see, this meteor deserves a bit more
>> > attention?
>> >
>> > - Jake
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> meteorobs mailing list
>> meteorobs at meteorobs.org
>> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> meteorobs mailing list
> meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.meteorobs.org/pipermail/meteorobs/attachments/20120215/d9007167/attachment.html