Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Scientists Fly to 2008's Most Dazzling Meteor Shower

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:09 PM
from the follow-that-burning-rock dept.
coondoggie writes "On Thursday, SETI Institute and NASA scientists will take their research instruments and their coffee for a 10 hour continuous flight to map what they say will be the earth's most brilliant meteor shower of 2008. Scientists believe the Quadrantid meteor shower could flash over 100 visible meteors per hour at its peak, depending on location. A Gulfstream V aircraft will take off from San Jose, Calif., and fly 14 scientists and their instruments for 10 continuous hours at 47,000ft., over the Arctic and back to San Jose. The primary goal of the lengthy airborne mission is to observe the Quadrantid meteor shower in ideal and virtually unchanging conditions far above light pollution and clouds to determine when the meteor shower peaks and how the flow of meteors are dispersed."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • What can you learn about a meteor shower from 47,000ft that you can't learn from the ground? What can you learn from the dispersion in the first place?
    • Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timmarhy (659436) on Wednesday January 02 2008, @11:18PM (#21890938)
      The real question is what can't you see from the ground, an the answer is SHITLOADS.

      light,clouds and smog obscure so much of the sky if you ever left your little suburban island you would be amazed at what the sky looks like.

        • by blueg3 (192743) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:52AM (#21891468)
          They have high-powered telescopes in areas with low light pollution, but these telescopes have a fixed position. Over the course of 10 hours, the Earth rotates quite a bit (10/24ths!), so the area of the Earth that is prime for observing the meteors moves over a large distance during the course of the shower.

          Planes can also fly above weather, whereas telescopes cannot see through many weather phenomena.

          Given the kind of costs that research entails, a flight like this probably isn't all that expensive.
            • Do you mean decimal? Because there aren't any units of revolution, neither metric nor imperial. Although I suppose the imperial unit of revolution should really be the Lenin.
        • Actually on the ground the lowest light one can be exposed to is still much brighter than natural darkness - you simply cannot escape the light pollution on the surface of the planet save for possibly in antartica or the middle of the pacific. The was actually a slashdot article on the subject a few months ago. Also, the telescopes are made to compensate for clouds and smog, but they can't slice through it. They're also subject to weather.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Light pollution is a problem even for the largest observatories. There is virtually no regulation. The best they can do is buy up as much surrounding land as possible or ensure it's a protected natural environment preserve. But even the largest observatories are facing problems where the surroundings have become increasingly densely populated and light polluted over the years.

          You can see the light dome for Calgary from 200 kilometers away, and Calgary has done a lot of work to reduce light pollution, being
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Actually telescopes, binoculars, etc, are a lousy way to watch a meteor shower. The viewing area is just too small compared to the area across which the meteors streak, and the chances of one actually crossing the viewing area is negligible. Whether you're a city dweller doomed to seeing only fireballs, or a rural farmer who gets to see every last dust particle burning in the upper atmosphere, the naked eye works better.
    • What can you learn about a meteor shower from 47,000ft that you can't learn from the ground?

      In Seattle you can learn that the meteor shower is happening. In the Northwest getting above the clouds is almost your only hope of seeing such a thing.

    • Re:really? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kristoph (242780) on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:12AM (#21892062)
      What can you learn about a meteor shower from 47,000ft that you can't learn from the ground?

      You can learn if you have what it takes to fly at 47,000ft, at night, above the arctic, while flaming stones fall all around you.

      ]{
      • That's one I wouldn't be volunteering for. Umm no I think I'll stay on the ground and watch the meteors, you guys have fun!
      • ...are these scientists purchasing carbon credits or are they the other type?
        This is a little off topic, but what happens with the carbon credits?

        If I buy credits to offset my car, is a company buying those credits so they can pollute more? If that is the case, what's the point, the pollution is still there? Or, is somebody somewhere storing carbon?

        • ...are these scientists purchasing carbon credits or are they the other type?

          This is a little off topic, but what happens with the carbon credits?

          If I buy credits to offset my car, is a company buying those credits so they can pollute more? If that is the case, what's the point, the pollution is still there? Or, is somebody somewhere storing carbon?

          Sorry for replying to my own post, I meant to say if I buy credits is there a company that sells credits and pollutes less and if not, then what's the poin

      • OK, so, at its peak this shower's going to dump approximately 1 meteor into the arctic every 36 seconds. The arctic is ~14 million sq km or roughly 14 trillion sq meters and your average gulfstream five is 100 sq meters seen from the top. The chance of getting hit is going to be something like 1 to 140 billion per meteor. Since the flight's ten hours long that's going to be 1,000 meteors total, giving a worst case scenario of something like 1:714,285,000 against. I'd be willing to risk that. Anyone got a
  • SETI Scientists? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pushing-robot (1037830) on Wednesday January 02 2008, @11:16PM (#21890922)
    What are they doing, exactly? Seeing if the rocks are intelligent? Making sure the planet isn't being seeded by aliens?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02 2008, @11:41PM (#21891086)
      Don't complain. Any sort of shower those SETI scientists can get is a good thing.
    • Putting their scientific knowledge to good use, in an effort to justify their existence?
    • At least they will finally see something.
    • They can see a lot more detail if they're closer, without weather or light pollution geting in the way. They can also use the plane to stay in the best position for viewing.

      I'm no expert, but I guess that by observing the entry of these very high spped/energy rocks they can learn all sorts of useful stuff such as their composition, source (direction of origin) and such.
      • Well, all that is very insightful and I dare say informative, but IMHO you're answering the wrong question.

        If I read the GP question right, the question is what are _SETI_ scientists hoping to learn there. Since, you know, SETI = Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Those rocks probably didn't have much intelligent populations in the first place, since that tends to mean large multi-cellular organisms, not at most a few frozen bacteria in the cracks of a rock. And even if they had intelligent bacteria
        • I tried to answer as to what SETI people might be doing 'up there'?

          As for what the SETI people are doing, 'in general', not even God knows that one...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The meteor acts like a old-fashioned flame test, revealing the identity of the elements present in the meteoroid by the spectrum of the emitted light. They're checking for the presence of organic matter, which has something to do with the search for life, if not specifically intelligent life.
  • by Smordnys s'regrepsA (1160895) on Wednesday January 02 2008, @11:27PM (#21891008) Journal
    Meteors watch you!

    Seriously, though, what's wrong with watching from an area on the ground that has low Light Pollution? Does it not cost enough?
    • Even in an area with low light pollution, the atmosphere is still scattering or optically distorting light from the stars, meteorites, etc..For a favorable view of anything in the upper atmosphere or beyond, it is imperative to get above as much of it as possible. For a good idea of what's wrong with looking at something through a lot of atmosphere, go somewhere with low levels of light pollution and watch the stars twinkle. It's not the stars jumping around, it's the turbulence in the atmosphere that ca
      • yeah, somehow the idea of flying over the barren arctic in the middle of winter while giant balls of flaming death hurtle down from the sky just doesn't sound like a good idea...
        • or even small ones...

          Well, with the math guys of seti on board I'm sure they've done a probability analysis of making it back in one piece. Would be a hell of a way to end the seti project though, if a whole planeload of seti associated scientists got hit by an Extraterristrial Object. Be even more apt if it artificial, but you can't win them all.
      • Yeah right, 'cause the planet is just chock full of unprofitable private research firms bestowing gifts onto the taxpayer.
  • Well, at least those astronomers will get to experience one type of shower up close in their lives.
  • Coffee? Lengthy?

    A 10 hour shift is lengthy and requires lots of coffee?

    I want that job. The blurb author must work 3 hours a day.
    • That's a pretty short research run for a scientist, although there's probably a respectable amount of equipment setup and testing beforehand. But no respectable scientist would go without coffee, even if it was a short trip.
    • No no, you misunderstood; they're taking a 10 hour long coffee /break/ to go look at the meteors. Totally acceptable.
  • Because (Score:3, Funny)

    by mfh (56) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:27AM (#21891340) Journal
    Flying a plane into a meteor shower just seemed like a scientifically brilliant thing to do. Haven't these guys seen a Hollywood movie ever? The rocks will smash the plane into bits!
  • by viking80 (697716) on Thursday January 03 2008, @12:40AM (#21891408) Journal
    Google CEO has some private jets, and wanted to land on the airstrip next to the Googleples. Unfortunately, Moffet field is a military airfield operated by NASA. NASA and Google however agreed to scratch each others backs: Googles private jets will be part of NASA's scientific research program, and the can land the jets right next to the Googleplex.

    I'm guessing giving the NASA guys a few rides in a private jet, and serving a few bottles of champagne is a small price to pay to be able to park your fleet of jets outside you office, and at the same time avoid all normal hassles.

    I hope the pictures of the meteores turn out well.
  • Sounds like a sightseeing tour, followed by an airborne party, I'm sure.

  • by szyzyg (7313) on Thursday January 03 2008, @01:29AM (#21891626)
    If you've got a decent camera and you're in the right place, at the right time, then you can potentially photgraph some meteors, and possibly collect useful data for meteor researchers. If a meteor trail is imaged from multiple ground locations then the trajectory can be reconstructed.


    I snapped this image http://groups.imeem.com/iQrVatKB/photo/fIua32Y9X8/ [imeem.com] with my Nikon D50 during the Aurigid shower last year and the data from this and other images was useful to Peter and his collaborators. So, take some time to snap some pictures if you're up for it, you never know it might be useful.

  • An airplane is found with meteorite holes in the Arctic Circle. No signs of survivors, but a strange blob was found attached to the aircraft.
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Thursday January 03 2008, @01:42AM (#21891678)
    Also, the in-flight movie will be Armageddon. Headphone rental is five dollars.

    • I can't help but think of the first Mountain climb I ever did. It was with my middle school teacher, and we took a coach bus on the 3 hour trip.

      His choice for a movie? K2, the one where people die climbing a mountain. I suppose he was a sick bastard, after all.
  • I heard in 2007 that there was a serious threat of SETI being shut down for lack of funding.

    If this is how they're spending it, they should be. I'm a staunch technophile, and I believe SETI is worth doing but a junket is a junket and wasted TAX DOLLARS is bullshit.

    A ten hour flight in a government/private Gulfstream over the arctic to view a meteorite shower?

    What, pray tell, do they expect to learn?
  • A Gulfstream V aircraft will take off from San Jose, Calif...The primary goal of the lengthy airborne mission is to observe the Quadrantid meteor shower in ideal and virtually unchanging conditions...

    Those ideal conditions specifically being the well-stocked supply of canapés and booze in that private jet.
    • by reverseengineer (580922) on Wednesday January 02 2008, @11:43PM (#21891096)
      Meteor showers are generally the result of the earth passing through a stream of small debris particles. Streams of notable size (large enough that you would reasonably call such an encounter a "shower") almost always are from fragments which break free from comets as they pass near the sun. Just as the comets are periodic, the positions of the debris trails are periodic- most meteor showers can now not only be anticipated in terms of time and optimal location, but in approximate meteor frequency as well.
    • This may be a silly question, but how to they know when there's going to be a meteor shower? Is there some sort of radar? Or do the meteors run predictable laps around the solar system?
      As has been said above, it goes on a regular schedule. They have a list of them up on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] if you want to plan for the next event.
    • This is a little confusing to me, however, as I would expect that if the we are "Assuming the peak is at 2h00m UT", then I would back 7 hours out of that and I would assume that the peak time in Denver would be 7:00 p.m. MST on Jan 3rd.

      I haven't bothered to check the applets and I'm no astrophysicist, so take this with a grain of salt. Perhaps the results are accounting for your location, including interference from daylight and the tilt of the earth? The overall peak for the planet may be several hours