[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

(meteorobs) Re: Astronomy magazine's coverage of the 2001 Leonids

To add one more error:

>"The storm, if it does occur, will result from Earth passing through 
> streams of locally dense meteoric debris during the early hours of 
> November 18. The two streams were deposited along the orbit of the 
> parent comet Swift-Tuttle in 1699 and 1866."

Wrong comet!!! Swift-Tuttle is the parent of the Perseid meteors. The
parent comet of the Leonids is Temple-Tuttle. This article is a bad joke
and it will be sad if anyone is misled by the inaccuracies it contains.
Now you know why I canceled my subscription to Astronomy Magazine. Nice
pictures but lousy information.

Clear Skies!

Robert Lunsford



"Joe Rao (via Lew Gramer)" wrote:
> 
> >To: meteorobs@atmob.org, astro-l@uwwvax.uww.edu
> >Cc: imo-news@yahoogroups.com, atmob-discuss@atmob.org, [...]
> 
> Just picked up a copy of the November 2001 issue of Astronomy magazine.
> Regarding the information they provide to their readers concerning the
> upcoming Leonid meteor shower, writers Martin Radcliffe and Alister Ling
> note the following:
> 
> On page 70:
> 
> "A fury of falling stars will shoot across the heavens, the likes of which
> have not been witnessed since the 1966 Leonid meteor shower."
> 
>     Not exactly true . . . the 1966 shower briefly produced visual hourly
> rates of perhaps 150,000.  At their best in 2001, the Leonid predicted rates
> a full order of magnitude lower (~15,000/hr).
> 
> "The storm surge is expected to hit at night for Australasia and reserve a
> good squall for the Western Hemisphere a few hours later."
> 
>     Wrong! The Western Hemisphere is anticipated to see enhanced Leonid
> activity before the Far East.  Peak activity for the Western Hemisphere is
> due near, or soon after 10 h UT on November 18, while Australasia should see
> their outburst roughly eight hours later.
> 
> "Meteor counts are likely to range from a couple of hundred per hour over the
> Americas to a few thousand per hour on the other side of the world."
> 
>     Even the most conservative estimates indicate hourly rates of at least
> 1000/hr. over the Americas, with anywhere from 5000 to 15,000/hr. possible
> for parts of Asia and Australia.  This statement also contradicts what was
> written in the first paragraph ("A fury of falling stars will shoot across
> the heavens, the likes of which have not been witnessed since the 1966 Leonid
> meteor shower").  How can one initially draw comparisons to such a stupendous
> display as the 1966 Leonids by later suggesting hourly rates of ". . . a
> couple of hundred to a few thousand" for the 2001 Leonids?
> 
> On page 78:
> 
> "A pair of astronomers from the Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland
> correctly predicted the great Leonid meteor show in 1999 and the lack of a
> great display in 2000."
> 
>     While their names are nowhere mentioned in the Astronomy article, this is
> no doubt an allusion to David Asher and Rob McNaught.  However, while Asher
> is indeed affiliated with Armagh Observatory,  McNaught resides in Australia
> and is affiliated with the Australian National Observatory and Siding Spring
> Observatory.
> 
> "The storm, if it does occur, will result from Earth passing through streams
> of locally dense meteoric debris during the early hours of November 18.  The
> two streams were deposited along the orbit of the parent comet Swift-Tuttle
> in 1699 and 1866."
> 
>     Actually, the storm resulting from these two dust trails will be
> available only from eastern Asia and Australia . . . and since these regions
> are to the west of the International Date Line, the correct time of encounter
> should be ". . . during the early hours of November 19."
> 
> "Because meteor shower prediction is in its infancy, the potential for
> disappointment is considerable."
> 
>     This almost sounds like something that was written in advance a 1960s
> Leonid shower.  In sharp contrast, recent predictions of meteor outbursts
> using the new dust-trail methodology (pioneered in Russia and later refined
> by reputable meteor scientists in other parts of the world) have proven to be
> very reliable in anticipating unusually high activity and even more accurate
> in predicted times of such outbursts.
> 
> "The best advice is to keep a careful watch on the skies from midnight until
> dawn on November 18."
> 
>     No . . . the BEST advice (at least for readers in North America) would
> have been for Astronomy to indicate to their readers the predicted time when
> the encounter with the 1767 dust trail was predicted to take place (near or
> soon after 10 h UT on November 18).
> 
>     Unfortunately, because their readership was not provided with this very
> important piece of information.  I can envision many neophyte observers
> dutifully heading out at the stroke of midnight, yet ironically calling it a
> night after an hour or two in the cold only because they weren't seeing the
> hoped-for meteor storm . . . only to wake up later that morning to hear that
> the anticipated "good squall" did indeed occurred but only after they had
> reacquainted themselves with their nice warm beds!
> 
> Joe Rao
> 
> To stop getting email from the 'meteorobs' list, use the Web form at:
> http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
To stop getting email from the 'meteorobs' list, use the Web form at:
http://www.meteorobs.org/subscribe.html
References: