The 2003 Leonid Meteor Shower

I don't know if part of this is the fault of the press, but I bet most of it
is. The plain fact of the matter is that these meteor streams in space are
not continuous or evenly spread along their path. Clumps of material occur,
and in fact have to occur given the origin of the material and to a lesser
extend the gravitational effects of the planets. But in the Grand Tradition
of glossing over the details nd painting the picture in overly-broad
strokes, the media gives the impression that the sky will fill with stars.
This happened with the Leonids a couple of times, but the effect, if memory
serves, was fairly localized and the duration short. So the distortion
caused by the press, and perhaps by wishful thinking and hoping, hypes the
event and raises expectations to unrealistic levels.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone




"Morris Jones" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:
2001, while a nice show, was nothing like what happened
in 1966.

By now it's obvious these "researchers" have no clue about
the true location of the Tempel-Tuttle debris trail(s). They've
been all but promising a storm similar to 1966 every year
since 1999, and all of them have basically sucked (except
for 2001, and even that was a shower -- not a storm).

I'd say that the current dust trail models are remarkably accurate,
especially in the timing. Jane and I flew on the 2002 mission to
document the two storm peaks. The peaks were within 15 minutes of the
forecast time. That continues to amaze me.

Certainly the rate forecasts are not as accurate as the timing, but I
personally documented rates over 1,000/hour in Alice Springs, Australia,
during the second peak of the 2001 storm.

I agree that it's difficult to model how much material is in each of
the dust trails, which is why we continue to document and study the
Leonids.

But to say they have "no clue" is absurd.

Mojo
2002 Leonid MAC scrapbook: http://www.whiteoaks.com/mac-2002/
--
Morris Jones *
San Rafael, CA

http://www.whiteoaks.com

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:22:21 GMT, "David Nakamoto" wrote:

I don't know if part of this is the fault of the press, but I bet most of it
is. The plain fact of the matter is that these meteor streams in space are
not continuous or evenly spread along their path. Clumps of material occur,
and in fact have to occur given the origin of the material and to a lesser
extend the gravitational effects of the planets. But in the Grand Tradition
of glossing over the details nd painting the picture in overly-broad
strokes, the media gives the impression that the sky will fill with stars.
This happened with the Leonids a couple of times, but the effect, if memory
serves, was fairly localized and the duration short. So the distortion
caused by the press, and perhaps by wishful thinking and hoping, hypes the
event and raises expectations to unrealistic levels.

Indeed. And this also describes the situation in 1966, where the vast majority
of people saw only a good Leonid year, not the storm of a lifetime. My
conditions in 2001 were better than in 1966.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:22:21 GMT, "David Nakamoto" wrote:

I don't know if part of this is the fault of the press, but I bet most of it
is. The plain fact of the matter is that these meteor streams in space are
not continuous or evenly spread along their path. Clumps of material occur,
and in fact have to occur given the origin of the material and to a lesser
extend the gravitational effects of the planets. But in the Grand Tradition
of glossing over the details nd painting the picture in overly-broad
strokes, the media gives the impression that the sky will fill with stars.
This happened with the Leonids a couple of times, but the effect, if memory
serves, was fairly localized and the duration short. So the distortion
caused by the press, and perhaps by wishful thinking and hoping, hypes the
event and raises expectations to unrealistic levels.

Indeed. And this also describes the situation in 1966, where the vast majority
of people saw only a good Leonid year, not the storm of a lifetime. My
conditions in 2001 were better than in 1966.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Rick" wrote in message ...


2001, while a nice show, was nothing like what happened
in 1966.

By now it's obvious these "researchers" have no clue about
the true location of the Tempel-Tuttle debris trail(s). They've
been all but promising a storm similar to 1966 every year
since 1999, and all of them have basically sucked (except
for 2001, and even that was a shower -- not a storm).

It may have not been quite up to the 1966 storm, but there were a
number of places on Earth where the activity reached storm level (you
apparently weren't at the right place at the right time). Even last
year (2002) when the nearly-full moon was up, there was a brief time
when the number of meteors seen in the middle of the U.S. reached
near-storm levels (I saw 5 appear in less than one second at one
point, although the hourly rate was still in the several hundred per
hour range). Even out of the peaks, the 1999 display was better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (well over 300 meteors
visible per hour for at least two hours). The 2000 shower had moon
problems, but still ranked well above the shower rates for every
single annual shower. (I was clouded out but had over 500 radio
meteor "pings" per hour). The 2001 shower was also vastly better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (not quite a storm, but
pretty close for a while, as they were up to 19 meteors in a one
minute interval), so I would not say that any of them "basically
sucked". Quite frankly, the Leonids from 1999 to 2002 were the best
showers I will probably ever see. It looks like you got your hopes up
a little too high, as nobody "promised" a storm, but indicated that
one was possible (and to some extent, they were right). Clear skies
to you.

David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"Rick" wrote in message ...


2001, while a nice show, was nothing like what happened
in 1966.

By now it's obvious these "researchers" have no clue about
the true location of the Tempel-Tuttle debris trail(s). They've
been all but promising a storm similar to 1966 every year
since 1999, and all of them have basically sucked (except
for 2001, and even that was a shower -- not a storm).

It may have not been quite up to the 1966 storm, but there were a
number of places on Earth where the activity reached storm level (you
apparently weren't at the right place at the right time). Even last
year (2002) when the nearly-full moon was up, there was a brief time
when the number of meteors seen in the middle of the U.S. reached
near-storm levels (I saw 5 appear in less than one second at one
point, although the hourly rate was still in the several hundred per
hour range). Even out of the peaks, the 1999 display was better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (well over 300 meteors
visible per hour for at least two hours). The 2000 shower had moon
problems, but still ranked well above the shower rates for every
single annual shower. (I was clouded out but had over 500 radio
meteor "pings" per hour). The 2001 shower was also vastly better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (not quite a storm, but
pretty close for a while, as they were up to 19 meteors in a one
minute interval), so I would not say that any of them "basically
sucked". Quite frankly, the Leonids from 1999 to 2002 were the best
showers I will probably ever see. It looks like you got your hopes up
a little too high, as nobody "promised" a storm, but indicated that
one was possible (and to some extent, they were right). Clear skies
to you.

David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"David Knisely" wrote in message
m...
"Rick" wrote in message
...


2001, while a nice show, was nothing like what happened
in 1966.

By now it's obvious these "researchers" have no clue about
the true location of the Tempel-Tuttle debris trail(s). They've
been all but promising a storm similar to 1966 every year
since 1999, and all of them have basically sucked (except
for 2001, and even that was a shower -- not a storm).

It may have not been quite up to the 1966 storm, but there were a
number of places on Earth where the activity reached storm level (you
apparently weren't at the right place at the right time). Even last
year (2002) when the nearly-full moon was up, there was a brief time
when the number of meteors seen in the middle of the U.S. reached
near-storm levels (I saw 5 appear in less than one second at one
point, although the hourly rate was still in the several hundred per
hour range). Even out of the peaks, the 1999 display was better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (well over 300 meteors
visible per hour for at least two hours). The 2000 shower had moon
problems, but still ranked well above the shower rates for every
single annual shower. (I was clouded out but had over 500 radio
meteor "pings" per hour). The 2001 shower was also vastly better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (not quite a storm, but
pretty close for a while, as they were up to 19 meteors in a one
minute interval), so I would not say that any of them "basically
sucked". Quite frankly, the Leonids from 1999 to 2002 were the best
showers I will probably ever see. It looks like you got your hopes up
a little too high, as nobody "promised" a storm, but indicated that
one was possible (and to some extent, they were right). Clear skies
to you.

David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

This is why I'd rather try and catch a comet or some other solar system
event. Well, not transits of Mercury and Venus across the Sun; it can't
compare with the Moon doing it and revealing the Corona. But the fickleness
of meteor showers, and their dependency on where you are and when you
observe, not to mention the uneven distribution of material in the stream,
even if you know precisely where it is and where it will hit the Earth,
leave me cold. At least comets don't vary their appearance much hour to
hour.
^_^

"David Knisely" wrote in message
m...
"Rick" wrote in message
...


2001, while a nice show, was nothing like what happened
in 1966.

By now it's obvious these "researchers" have no clue about
the true location of the Tempel-Tuttle debris trail(s). They've
been all but promising a storm similar to 1966 every year
since 1999, and all of them have basically sucked (except
for 2001, and even that was a shower -- not a storm).

It may have not been quite up to the 1966 storm, but there were a
number of places on Earth where the activity reached storm level (you
apparently weren't at the right place at the right time). Even last
year (2002) when the nearly-full moon was up, there was a brief time
when the number of meteors seen in the middle of the U.S. reached
near-storm levels (I saw 5 appear in less than one second at one
point, although the hourly rate was still in the several hundred per
hour range). Even out of the peaks, the 1999 display was better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (well over 300 meteors
visible per hour for at least two hours). The 2000 shower had moon
problems, but still ranked well above the shower rates for every
single annual shower. (I was clouded out but had over 500 radio
meteor "pings" per hour). The 2001 shower was also vastly better than
any other annual shower I have ever seen (not quite a storm, but
pretty close for a while, as they were up to 19 meteors in a one
minute interval), so I would not say that any of them "basically
sucked". Quite frankly, the Leonids from 1999 to 2002 were the best
showers I will probably ever see. It looks like you got your hopes up
a little too high, as nobody "promised" a storm, but indicated that
one was possible (and to some extent, they were right). Clear skies
to you.

David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

This is why I'd rather try and catch a comet or some other solar system
event. Well, not transits of Mercury and Venus across the Sun; it can't
compare with the Moon doing it and revealing the Corona. But the fickleness
of meteor showers, and their dependency on where you are and when you
observe, not to mention the uneven distribution of material in the stream,
even if you know precisely where it is and where it will hit the Earth,
leave me cold. At least comets don't vary their appearance much hour to
hour.
^_^