[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Fw: orbits
At 06:11 PM 6/27/99 -0700, Ed Majden wrote:
> I have passed much of the comments about meteor orbits etc on meteorobs,
>to Dr. Jeremy Tatum. an astronomer and physics professor at the University
>of Victoria.
>
>Subject: orbits
>
>
>Hello, Ed:
>
>I am not familiar with the
>circumstances of many of the meteorites mentioned in the current
>correspondence, but there were to my knowledge no instrumental
>measurements of either the position or the velocity (and I stress
>again that both are essential) of St Robert, and consequently that any
>conclusions about its pre-encounter orbit are sheer speculation of no
>scientific value.
St. Robert was observed not only by ground-based visual observers, but also
by space-based infrared and visual sensors which yielded a number of data
points which were used in computing several orbit possibilities, including
the one that the authors note as "most likely":
Meteoritics, vol. 31, pages 502-517: "The fall of the St-Robert meteorite",
by Brown, P.; Hildebrand, A.; Green, D.; Page, D.; Jacobs, C.; Revelle, D.;
Tagliaferri, E.; Wacker, J.; and Wetmiller, B.
>I dare say this applies to many of the other
>claimed pre-encounter orbits.
>
Whether Dr. Tatum dares or not, there are many such derived orbits
published in peer-reviewed journals by professional astronomers. I
certainly should have mentioned the inherent inaccuracies in visually
observed orbits, and thanks to Rob McNaught for helping to set the list
readers straight. Calling them "sheer speculation of no scientific value"
is perhaps overstating the case the other way.
JB
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
References: