Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Scientists Fly to 2008's Most Dazzling Meteor Shower 124

Posted by samzenpus 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Fly to 2008's Most Dazzling Meteor Shower More

Scientists Fly to 2008's Most Dazzling Meteor Shower

Comments Filter:

  • really? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mastershake_phd ( 1050150 )
    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 Thursday January 03, 2008 @12:18AM (#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.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by SgtShavedBalls ( 1207670 )
        Even from a mountaintop, the view of meteor shows is incredible. I used to watch with binoculars wehn i was a kid. You caN'T SEE much of anything in a subarb, much less a citey. Seeing a meteor shower from a satelite would be spectacular. Maybe they'll have a webcam?
      • I have been outside of my "little suburban island" and it looked glorious, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to watch a meteor shower from the middle of a metropolis. I thought their observatories were already built far away from cities? If they already have high powered telescopes in areas with low light pollution, what EXTRA benefit will an costly 10 flight give them?

        • Re:Star Light, Star Bright (Score:5, Interesting)

          by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @01:52AM (#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.
          • The flight wasn't expensive until they requested a glass dome to replace the ceiling of the plane so they could actually see the shower. They eventually came to a compromise and went with a convertible top; we'll get to see how that plays out shortly.
        • 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)

          by Cecil ( 37810 )
          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
          • While I do agree with you about light pollution being a PITA, a Bad Thing (tm), and something we really should cut down on...

            I'm just not buying that you can see the Calgary light dome from 200km away. Even excluding the fact that I don't think there's anywhere in Alberta you could sit 200km away from Calgary and not have another town in between, seeing the light dome from that far away would require a 3136M cloud ceiling just to clear the horizon, which I'd expect would be hard to get while maintaining 200

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cecil ( 37810 )
              I'm unsure what you're talking about regarding clouds and cloud height. Clouds have nothing to do with light domes, which are visible regardless of sky transparency and seeing conditions.

              And for the record, I'm sure that yes it is visible from that far away. I've been to an observatory on highway 11, east of Condor, and it's quite visible with a dark-adapted naked eye from there. It's even more obvious with photographs or any other light gathering device. And there are plenty of places in Alberta where you

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mforbes ( 575538 )
          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.
    • 1. you learn you need to duck sooner than everyone else.
      2. you learn what good landing strips are left after it has passed.
      are these scientists purchasing carbon credits or are they the other type? Sometimes i can't tell.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mh1997 ( 1065630 )

        ...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?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mh1997 ( 1065630 )

          ...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

          • More or less. I used to monitor the operations of the DuPont (now Invista) nylon Common Offgas Abatement Unit in the UK. See page 15 of http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/2000/pdf/section5.pdf [defra.gov.uk] for an overview. As part of the work, we got set annually decreasing emissions targets which we had to meet. If you emitted less than them, you could sell the difference as credits. If you missed the targets, you had to either buy credits to make up for the difference, or shut down for the rest
    • sorry, I gotta say this...you learn that some meteors make it to 47,000 feet and hit planes hehehe. In fact, a lot of small ones hit the ground. Remember that one during that baseball game that hit that lady's car and her insurance didn't cover meteorites but she sold the meteorite to scientists for over a million and bought a new car. Yeah well a lot more meteors hit the ground (and thus become meteorites) during meteor showers
      • sorry, I gotta say this...you learn that some meteors make it to 47,000 feet and hit planes hehehe. In fact, a lot of small ones hit the ground.

        The probability of a meteor strike on a plane is so low it's almost negligible, but still possible [sciam.com]. Mind you, flights over the North Pole occur regularly when taking a great circle route and the airlines don't adjust their schedules or routes around meteor showers.

    • In Seattle... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by symbolset ( 646467 )

      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.

      • In Seattle, it's not just the clouds, there's all the light pollution--though I'm sure we're not alone on that count. (Weirds me out when I walk around Downtown late at night and it's not dark because of all the street lights.)

    • Re:really? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kristoph ( 242780 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @04:12AM (#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!
    • Is it just me who cant understand why you would fly a plane (which is basically nothing more than an aluminum balloon pressurized at a much higher density than the atmosphere at that height) , through a meteor shower which hoping to get the best view of the largest meteor shower at the same time as not actually wanting to get hit by something which could do damage to the plane itself.

      It seems to me that its kinda like going outside during a record hail storm and hoping not to get hit.

      Hey Im all for sc
      • 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
        • And let's just forget that if the article says that a meteor shower will occur "in the Arctic," that does not mean "throughout the Arctic" or "everywhere in the Arctic." I'll bet that guys smart enough to calculate the date, time and location of a meteor shower before it happens are just telling their pilot to fly them through the middle of the meteor shower instead of beside it, where they might see something out the windows. Losers who talk about science like Einstein just juxtaposed symbols at random un
      • It's people like you, and your crazy, irrational fears, which end up forcing the rest of us to take our shoes off at the airport.
        • The funny thing is that the real lesson we can learn from the 'shoe bomber' is that terrorists are, by and large, not exactly criminal masterminds. He could have pulled the whole thing off without a hitch if he'd just gone into the lavatory and covered the smoke detectors with Saran Wrap.
    • 47000 feet yields good views, but they are still from those little airplane windows. Even views from cockpits are not that great . . . unless they're in a Mig 24 (a guy I used to work with flew one, he was most impressed by the "great vis"). Every time I fly, and spend more than a few minutes trying to focus on something outside the airplane window I get a headache. I didn't read the article, so perhaps they will actually have cameras etc. mounted outside the plane, but in that case why include the scien

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by aqk ( 844307 )
      idiot.

      For one thing, you can learn that MOST clouds are under 40,000 feet.
      Try seeing a meteor shower or an eclipse or F....ng ANYTHING in the sky when it's full of clouds!
      Most nights, I don't use my 'scope...

      But WTF do you care, Luddite.


  • SETI Scientists? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @12:16AM (#21890922)
    What are they doing, exactly? Seeing if the rocks are intelligent? Making sure the planet isn't being seeded by aliens?

    • Re:SETI Scientists? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2008 @12:41AM (#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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SetupWeasel ( 54062 )
      At least they will finally see something.
      • > "On Thursday, SETI Institute and NASA scientists

        and

        > the Quadrantid meteor shower could flash over 100 visible meteors per hour

        SETI Guy: Wait, I'm getting something!

        NASA Guy: What?

        SETI Guy: Here, lemme adjust...

        Audio Speaker: (gkkkzt!) ...and the odds of successfully navagating a meteor shower are 3,628 to 1!

    • 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...
          • As for what the SETI people are doing, 'in general', not even God knows that one...

            You pegged my irony meter. Well done.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          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.

          Well, you never know, some of the meteors may be aliens [imdb.com] in search of something...

          (C'mon, it was a gimme!)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by barakn ( 641218 )
      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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by MojoSF ( 658720 )

      They usually have two goals: Get high-resolution spectra, and count meteors.

      Getting spectra of meteors is exceedingly difficult, because a spectroscope on a camera or telescope has a narrow field of view. By flying the instruments at high altitude, during a high-rate meteor shower, the odds are good that they'll catch some good spectra.

      The other factor of interest is the particle flux. By studying the timing and orbit of the particles, it helps to refine the models for predicting such showers. It al

  • In Soviet Russia (Score:4, Funny)

    by Smordnys s'regrepsA ( 1160895 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @12:27AM (#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?
    • I suppose the odds are low that they will be struck while in flight.... still, I wonder how many meteors are still producing visible trails when they reach 47,000 feet and below?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lazlo ( 15906 )
        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.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by JoeMerchant ( 803320 )
      Oh, and about the cost....

      If you calculate the bureaucrats salaries for the time it took them to write up and propose this expedition, along with the "burdened cost" of the buildings, utilities, auditors, HR personnel, finance personnel, oversight, management, retirement and other benefits, etc. involved, the actual operational costs of the Gulfstream jet are trivial.... now consider that the "ground mission" would still carry most of the other costs, as well as a month's preparation on-site for the inst

      • Yeah right, 'cause the planet is just chock full of unprofitable private research firms bestowing gifts onto the taxpayer.
        • Yeah, there is that- the private sector does tend to answer first, last, and always to the investors' greed....

          But, bureaucratic overhead (especially at the federal level) seems such a high price to pay for anything.

    • Seriously, though, what's wrong with watching from an area on the ground that has low Light Pollution? Does it not cost enough?

      Weather probably has a lot to do with it. Getting good weather in January is tricky. If its not cloudy, its probably hazy from the cold temperatures. Also, the shower is best seen in very northern latitudes, where the chances of good weather are even slimmer. Flying above the weather gives you a much better view. And science likes a consistent view. You want to know that a spot wh

      • Flying above the weather gives you a much better view.

        Really??? A better view of what? Light pollution? Light schmight! The only way these scientists are going to see any meteors is if they happen to glimpse a couple flashing by the side windows. Or does this plane have a skylight? (Through which they can see the sky lights! Ha ha!) Or maybe the pilot will turn the plane on its side while they're viewing? Right! Seriously, unless this is a special plane with a window or some kind of scopes in the ceiling they're not going to see much.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )
          Why are you asking me what kind of equipment they are using?
               

          • Why are you asking me what kind of equipment they are using?

            I wasn't. They're almost certainly flying in a plane equipped with ultra-wide-field scopes purposely designed for meteor viewing. But the image of the scientists belted in their seats while the pilot banks the plane from side to side so that they can look straight up through the side windows was just so hilarious that I just had to share it with everybody.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Tablizer ( 95088 )
              was just so hilarious that I just had to share it with everybody.

              I guess I didn't get the joke.
                 

              • I guess I didn't get the joke.

                Oh, c'mon! Imagine a planeload of supposedly distinguished astronomers all strapped to their seats with half of them staring out the side windows as the pilot flies the plane on its side so they can look straight up at the meteor shower (since you need to look up near the shower's origin to see any decent number of them): "Hey, I just saw a bright one!" "Oooh, look at that one!" (Etc. etc.) Meanwhile, the other half (on the other side of the plane) are saying "Hey, come on guys, that's enough. It's our tu

    • Off-topic, just wondering why you "light pollution" is capitalized.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by barakn ( 641218 )
      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

  • Hm (Score:2)

    by inKubus ( 199753 )
    Well, at least those astronomers will get to experience one type of shower up close in their lives.
  • SETI Institute and NASA scientists will ... map what they say will be the earth's most brilliant meteor shower of 2008.

    At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?
  • So they really can fly after all. Damn, should have been a scientist.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blueg3 ( 192743 )
      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.
    • I did some observing and it was 12 hour shifts, but chances are they're going to be observing all night after being awake for a normal day, so coffee will be necessary.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by griffjon ( 14945 )
      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 @01:27AM (#21891340) Homepage 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!

  • Googleplex, Moffet field and backscratching (Score:4, Informative)

    by viking80 ( 697716 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @01:40AM (#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.

  • I can see that there are very few of us who think this is a accident waiting to happen.... why is that?

  • If you're in the right place you can help (Score:4, Interesting)

    by szyzyg ( 7313 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @02:29AM (#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.

  • We know you have your choice of airlines (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @02:42AM (#21891678)
    Also, the in-flight movie will be Armageddon. Headphone rental is five dollars.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ZX3 Junglist ( 643835 )
      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.
  • Can someone help me with these two applets? They make no sense to me.

    There's two little Java web applets called FLUXTIMATOR [seti.org] that allow you to put in your location and it will show you the expected number of shooting stars per hour for a ten hour time frame. However, because the experts can't agree on exactly when the peak will occur, there are two different little FLUXTIMATOR applets. The first one is based on the assumption that the peak occurs at 2h00m UT. The second one is based on the assumption t
    • The applet automatically adjusts the time to "local time". When
      you plug in Denver for the 10 Quad 02:00, you'll notice at the
      bottom of the graph that it's adjusted to GMT -7. Just under
      and to the left, it says your peak is 04:16 local time in
      the countryside. So you don't have to make any further time
      adjustments. The applet does that for you when you select
      your city.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bhmit1 ( 2270 )

      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

      • Yeah, this makes sense to me. I thought of this after I posted the question. The applet is probably adjusting for the fact that it might be daylight at my location when the meteor shower peak intensity for the planet. So, even though the two predictions for peak activity are 4 hours and 40 minutes apart, the different peaks at my location are only 24 minutes apart. Thanks for the feedback.
  • 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.
  • OK, one obvious question: why the heck does SETI Institute sends people to watch a meteorite shower? They expect to see alien ships there or what?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Vivieus ( 676170 )
      Because the SETI institute isn't, contrarily to popular belief, just about finding aliens. I'll quote their mission statement for you:
      "The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe."

      The alien part (SETI research) is just a subsection of broader research, just like astronomy (and that's what this is about) is.
  • Listen to it here: http://science.nasa.gov/audio/meteor/navspasur.m3u [nasa.gov] This link is audio detected with an ICOM R-8500 receiver tuned to 217.927 MHz SSB. The antenna is a 13 element 220 MHz. beam pointed upward and to the east. The CW signal is from a Space Radar facility in Lake Kickapoo, TX, formally called NAVSPASUR. It is now operated by the USAF.
  • Must say, I'm impressed. Anyone under 40, these days, spells (and pronounces) it, 'Artic' which is actually an Articulated Lorry.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close