Re: (meteorobs) Sporadic Flux Variations (long)

• To: Meteor Observing Mailing List <meteorobs@latradedot com>
• Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Sporadic Flux Variations (long)
• From: Lew Gramer <dedalus>
• Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 13:08:03 -0400
• In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Sep 96 15:33:03 BST." <Pine.OSF.3.91.960924142558.13514B-100000@ast.star.rl.acdot uk>
• Reply-To: meteorobs@latradedot com
• Sender: owner-meteorobs

A very interesting follow-up re: sporadic background and telescopic observing, 
Malcolm! How close is the total observed telescopic count to that 25000 total?

By the way, your post brought up yet another interesting question: why isn't 
two-station telescopic meteor plotting (at least theoretically) feasible? This 
question of course from a total telescopic newbie! But then this list IS for 
questions at all levels... :)

Seems that the increased plotting accuracy which telescopic observing provides, 
coupled with very careful relative positioning of observers, could provide 
sufficient baseline accuracy for orbit determinations. The first problem that 
comes to mind of course is getting accurate apparent-velocity estimates from 
visual telescopic observers. But surely there's some way of doing this?

It would be easier and cheaper than two-station photography...

Thoughts welcome,
Lew

• Re: (meteorobs) Sporadic Flux Variations (long)
• From: johrt@cablereginadot com

• RE: (meteorobs) Sporadic Flux Variations (long)
• From: Malcolm Currie <mjc@ast.star.rl.acdot uk>

• Prev: (meteorobs) Re: Bright meteor over Seattle
• Next: (meteorobs) Re: ALPO Lunar Eclipse Activities
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread