Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Mystery Fireball a Concorde Contrail? 52

Posted by michael from the area-51 dept.
unassimilatible writes "Space.com is reporting that an unidentified fireball seen over Wales was not a meteor, as originally claimed by NASA. What was it, and does this throw into question NASA's credibility? The truth is out there..." A follow-up to this story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mystery Fireball a Concorde Contrail? More

Mystery Fireball a Concorde Contrail?

Comments Filter:

  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:16AM (#7230216) Homepage
    How does this dispel NASA's credibility? Upon initial inspection, a hypothesis is made. Upon further inspection, a different hypothesis is reached because of data being added to the situation (Concorde flight paths). Were someone to come forward and produce a very large blowtorch, yet another hypothesis could be reached.

    What we have here is a lack of data, not lack of credibility. If anything, this should teach us to question the first, second and Nth hypothesis until it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    --trb

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)

      by br0ck ( 237309 )
      Especially since the explanation underneath the original picture [nasa.gov] was quickly updated to include the airplane hypothesis.
      • Explanation: Jon Burnett, a teenager from South Wales, UK, was photographing some friends skateboarding last week when the sky did something very strange. High in the distance, a sofa-sized rock came hurtling into the nearby atmosphere of planet Earth and disintegrated. By diverting his camera, he was able to document this rare sky event and capture one of the more spectacular meteor images yet recorded. Roughly one minute later, he took another picture of the dispersing meteor trial. Bright fireballs occur
  • I don't have the exact quote handy, but I'm reminded of something Professor Arturo on Sliders said: "That may be good enough if you want to work in some third world country, like NASA, but it will not do in my class."

    NASA... credibility... BAHAHAH!!!! Really, you kill me. Sniff. Chuckle.
    • True, true. Nothing near the credibility that the Sci-Fi channel has these days, professor Arturo especially.
    • NASA... credibility... BAHAHAH!!!! Really, you kill me. Sniff. Chuckle.

      Whereas dot com sites have been shown to have their veracity unimpugnable.

      Really, this article is "Bah! NASA got it wrong AGAIN!!", when the photo appeared on a NASA publicity site and then was corrected two days later - much earlier than this article was written.

      --
      Evan

    • So let me get this straight... you're questioning the credibility of NASA with a quote from... Sliders?

      Are you going to question the credibility of the president from a quote from Hee-Haw next? Here's a hint. Try to make the authority be more solid than the thing you're trying to critisize.

  • NASA was on this (Score:3, Informative)

    by GeoGreg ( 631708 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:28AM (#7230346)
    I had noticed that NASA had already revised their interpretation within a day or 2 of the original report. If you look here [nasa.gov], you will see that they reinterpreted it as a contrail reflecting the sun.
    • The credibility problem now lies with the guy who first captured the image.

      There are very few people on earth who would confuse a subsonic jet and an exploding flaming fireball streaking through the sky. Either the guy who made the picture was lying or NASA is full of it (or covering up the SGC's latest success at saving humanity).
      • IIRC, the guy who took the picture was a teenager. The BBC had a story about it, I think. His friend said "look at that", and he turned and took the picture, not knowing what it was. Maybe the Concorde made a loud noise. The kid sent the photo to NASA saying "what's this?", and their first interpretation was a fireball.
  • Don't you mean chemtrails [rense.com]?!

    Oh, I guess you actually mean contrails. Darn.

    • Many theorize that it s part of a clandestine operation to implement the New World Order (NWO) by eliminating society s "useless eaters" and the infirm and/or to reduce the population to a support level for the "elite".
      Hey, how do I find out if I am one of the "elite"?
  • After looking at that picture, I'm damn glad I wasn't flying that day.

    Damn "500" errors. How many attempts will it take for me to submit this time?

  • Concorde? Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) * <waldo&jaquith,org> on Thursday October 16, 2003 @12:39PM (#7231113) Homepage Journal
    "Steve Salter, an aircraft engineer in the UK, suggested the contrail might have come from the Concorde, whose flight timing would have put it in the vicinity at the right time. Others deduced the same.

    'I think the most likely explanation is that this is an unusual view of the Concorde's contrail,' the APOD's Bonnell told SPACE.com late last week."
    Mind you, what's being discussed is this photo [space.com] and this photo [space.com], each of which show -- fairly plainly -- huge flaming explosions leaving a trail of smoke behind them.

    Now, let there be no doubt that NASA is collectively a hell of a lot smarter than me. But, seriously, you're telling me that a tiny little plane like the Concorde is releasing a huge, explosion-shaped contrail behind it?

    Well, it's no wonder they decommissioned the damned things.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • What explains the huge, billowing shape at the end? I've never seen a contrail shaped like that.
        • Really? Look at a contrail some time after the aircraft goes by. It is quite diffuse.

          There could have been localized winds, stirring up that part faster then the rest of it.
          Leading to a wider appearing cloud of ice particles.
          Which then reflect the setting sun.
          • Well, this is a hypersonic plane... There's bound to be a helluva lot of air turbulence in its wake that would disperse the water vapor in all sorts of chaotic patterns.

            That is what it looks like to me.

          • I have seen diffuse contrails and they're pretty thin on vapor once they spread out. There is a much greater quantity of material in the cloud at the end of the trail than would be explained by diffusion. That's a pretty thick cloud of material. It's visibly not diffuse, and the fact that it reflects so much more sunlight (if you accept the reflection theory) than the rest of the trail is further proof that diffusion isn't the answer. The segment that is more diffuse should reflect less light per unit of ar

      • I have seen this before, but it was on a 747 and it was large enough to render the plane leaving the contrail invisible.

        All it needed was a regularly scheduled flight using the same runway, thank you Sydney Airport, and the sun to be in the correct position to create the spectacular glowing contrail effect. I got to see it for several days running, before the morning sun shifted enough to stop the effect being visible from my location.

    • Well, it's no wonder they decommissioned the damned things.

      They're still in service, and will be for a few days. Does anyone else find it amusing that it's already taking on the mythical aspects of Aurora?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Honestly, now, have you ever seen a contrail in that shape? Every contrail I've seen is roughly conical, with the greatest density being immediately behind the airplane. The contrail disperses over time to look like a long and thin strip of cloud in the sky.

  • All together, now: BULLSHIT!

    Seriously, if that kind of fireball came out of afterburning turbojets, then the last 50 years' worth of military aviators should have some comments about this. I'm pretty sure that the flames from a jet engine don't go very far before being obviously turned into steam and other byproducts. Of course, if the Concorde had managed to go sub-orbital and burned up on re-entry, then that's one thing, but I think we would have heard about that happening, by now.

    • But photos like this can be notoriously deceptive. I saw a fascinating show a few years ago about photographed UFO incidents, and there were some really interesting examples. To name a couple that I still remember:

      • Several people claim to have seen a pure white diamond shaped object that flies around the sky in an erratic zig-zag pattern, and they have video evidence to support their claims. The catch though is that all of the videos were recorded with the same model of Panasonic camcorder, and it just so
    • It could the following (borrowed from something I saw on rec.aviation.military):

      (1) Pilot dumps unburned fuel, forming a cloud of air-fuel behind the jet. There are valves to do this.

      (2) Pilot activates afterburner to ignite cloud. It's safe to do as the plane's speed is greater than the flame front speed.

      Why do it? It's one way to reduce aircraft weight below maximum landing weight (some planes can take off with a higher weight than landing weight) in an emergency.

      It's also quite a spectacular airsho
  • So they're absolutely sure it's not a meteor, but only vaguely sure it's a contrail.

    Sounds to me like just another person who needs to feel cool by trying to make others look bad.

    1: "Cool, check out this picture of a meteor"

    2: "That's no meteor, you idiot."

    1: "Oh...what is it?"

    2: "Uh...I dunno...Concorde? Whatever it is, it's definately not a meteor. Stupidhead NASA."
  • Seeing as how Nasa's findings were disputed after a second image of the 'fireball' was taken at a different angle, no, I'd say Nasa's credibility is just fine.
  • The other night I saw a jet fighter do a dump-and-burn of their fuel. It was very impressive, very loud, very bright.. and it looked just like that photo. But I mean it still could be a UFO yeah?
    • Quote: This is the classic F111 routine. Flying past at a maximum of 350kts, fuel is jettisoned from the aircraft and the afterburner is engaged. The unburned fuel ignites, creating an effect that always turns heads. If this maneuver is attempted at > 350 kts, the fuel will not ignite. This is why they tend to go vertical during the maneuver. Dump 'n Burn [tristesse.com]
  • Especially the part of totally dissing the theory of the meteor. I can see that bringing up other theories can be useful, but it appears as though some folks are trying to suggest that meteors don't enter the Earth's atmosphere (or so seldom that it is a geological event, not something mere mortals will ever witness).

    Having viewed several exploding meteors myself, I will have to say that it really isn't all that unusual. In my case, I didn't have a camera handy, and the whole event was over so fast that

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close