Comments on: Fireball over Colorado

By: Mashups – Round Dix | Gnarvtopia!

Mashups – Round Dix | Gnarvtopia! — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:26:51 +0000

[...] Falls Apart A couple of years ago there was a mysterious serious of lights over Colorado in the early morning hours. My husband saw them. I didn’t. The cover story [...]

By: Paul Barrow

Paul Barrow — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 05:16:29 +0000

I’ve done some research on the veracity of NORAD’s story that this was a Russian rocket booster. It may have been because of the launch trajectory, but the likelihood that it came from the Corot launch on December 27 is practically nil. See story on my website. http://www.hotmedia.us

By: Madalone

Madalone — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:05:51 +0000

@Harold:

According to NORAD sources cited in the Fox Colorado website, the fireball was caused by the booster stage for the COROT satellite.

The COROT telescope will try to find extrasolar planets by detecting their transits in front of their home suns. An interesting mission that has gone tragically underreported in the Bas Astronomy Blog. (@BA: Nudge, nudge…)

More to be found at http://smsc.cnes.fr/COROT/

Greetings from good olde Europe

Matthias DÃ¼bendorfer

By: Timothy Reed

Timothy Reed — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 05:06:27 +0000

On April 24, 1990, I had the good fortune to witness the re-entry of the Space Shuttle external tank from a vantage point on Maui. STS-31 was the flight that put the Hubble Space Telecope in orbit. The external tank usually burns up over the Indian Ocean, but the higher inclination orbit of this flight gave NASA an opportunity to dump the tank over Hawaii. The advantage of that was to observe the breakup with the array of telescopes at the Air Force Maui Optical Station on top of Haleakala.

Detailed observation was desired because NASA wanted to see if the tank would sufficiently break up without the use of the external tank tumble valve, which is used to jettison residual oxygen and hydrogen to start the tank rotating so that when it enters the atmosphere it breaks up more readily. (If you want something to break up in the atmosphere, the last thing you want is a nice stable aerodynamic shape easily slicing through the air.)

Working on a project associated with the Haleakala station, I was notified of the impending re-entry at about 3 a.m. local time. The spectacle was quite similar to the Colorado re-entry — colorful, bright, silent — but larger in extent. Two bright flashes early in the re-entry were presumably the ruptures of the oxygen and hydrogen tanks.

While I didn’t see this one (I live in the Denver metro area), I can assure you that it’s a truly spectacular sight!

Timothy Reed

By: Melusine

Melusine — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:27:29 +0000

Andrew, I’m not positive that Dr. Tony Phillips wrote that page, but he often plays a little loose with language (which is not a criticism – I’m devoted to Spaceweather.com). But to me “extinct” and “obsolete” due to “re-zoning” mean two different things. Extinct to me implies the constellation disappeared for good. Obsolete in name means just that. Maybe this is a semantic nitpick. “Extinct constellation” still sounds weird to me, but I’m not an astronomer. Well, learn something new every day…

By: Meteors from an extinct constellation (at wongaBlog)

Meteors from an extinct constellation (at wongaBlog) — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:54:50 +0000

[...] A friend sent me a link to this video of a spectacular ‘meteor shower’ over Colorado yesterday. It’s thought to actually be a Russian booster burning up in the atmosphere, but is nevertheless quite the sight. The news anchors, however, describe it as “meteors from an extinct constellation”. Meteors from an extinct constellation!? I can’t even imagine what they’re trying to say, and it seemed completely bizarre until a commenter at Bad Astronomy found this page. The actual meteor shower happening that night was the Quadrantids, and according to that Spaceweather site: Quadrantid meteors take their name from an obsolete constellation, Quadrans Muralis, found in early 19th-century star atlases between Draco, Hercules, and Bootes. It was removed, along with a few other constellations, from crowded sky maps in 1922 when the International Astronomical Union adopted the modern list of 88 officially-recognized constellations. The Quadrantids, which were “re-zoned” to Bootes after Quadrans Muralis disappeared, kept their name–possibly because another January shower was already widely-known to meteor watchers as the “Bootids.” [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:46:07 +0000

I think Melusine’s link explains the constellation remark. That site is 6th in google results for ‘Quadrantids’, and the final paragraph explains that the name of the shower comes from a constellation no longer officially recognised. The title of the page is the exact phrase the anchor used, too. Shame they didn’t think about what they were saying, though!

By: Harold

Harold — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:50:43 +0000

The most remarkable thing I’ve heard about this is that the Russian rocket had been used to lauch a French space telescope. Since when do the French have a space telescope? WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED OF THIS??? Cool if true.

Allison Cleckler, I remember seeing a firbeall once and have a vague memory of hearing a crackling sound at the same time. This simultaneous-sound phenomenon is occasionally reported, and there are a few legitimate theories (or would they be hypotheses?) to explain this. (The simultaneity is a big question. Think about the huge sound lag when a jet flies far overhead – and jets are much, much closer that meteors.) I wouldn’t be surprised if Phil has an entry on this somewhere.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:37:26 +0000

S. Bahl at 11:01 am
— I highly doubt theyâ€™d just waste parts for a rocket like this. –

It’s not waste. It costs more to get rocket pieces down in useable form than it does to just let them burn up. Look at the Space Shuttle for example – Despite the aims of that program, it still costs more per pound to launch from the “re-useable” Shuttle than it does from a normal “one use” rocket.

It’s one of the great ironies of modern space technology. One day, hopefully, rocketry and materials science will improve enough so that this is no longer true, but we’re a ways off, yet.

By: tom

tom — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:33:22 +0000

I never understand why the 911 call centers get flooded with calls when something like this happens.
There is a “comet-like” thing in the sky. Quick call 911!!!

Ugh…stupid people.

By: Melusine

Melusine — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:18:00 +0000

Johnny Vector: Good point, but I think it would be odd not to say "constellation of spacecraft." Also this Spaceweather page refers to "extinct" or "obsolete" constellation, but I still think it's a weirdly confusing thing to say, because what is actually being talked about. Thus, I think your last sentence is most accurate.

By: Johnny Vector

Johnny Vector — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:06:13 +0000

The “extinct constellation” comment might refer to a group of spacecraft. “Constellation” is a standard term for a group of spacecraft that work together, such as Iridium, GPS, TDRSS, etc. “Extinct” would then mean one that’s not used any more, I suppose, though that’s an odd term to use. Course they also say it’s a booster, which kinda blows that whole theory out of the sky.

Never mind. Let’s just go with “the press don’t understand science”. Guaranteed true in 95% of cases, anyway.

By: Johnny Vector

Johnny Vector — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:01:51 +0000

MaDeR, you left out why orbital mechanics is important. Basically, the easiest orbit to get to has an inclination equal to the launch latitude. For satellites that need to be in a polar orbit, you launch North or South to put it where you want it. For everything else, in general you start out launching to the East, to get the maximum boost from the Earth’s rotation. If you need a smaller inclination orbit, you make some burns once you’re up to change the plane of the orbit. This costs a lot of fuel, so it’s only done when the orbit has to be lower inclination. Also it leaves any orbiting booster stages in the original inclined orbit.

So, most satellites, and nearly all orbiting boosters, are in an orbit with an inclination equal to the launch latitude. American launches are mostly from Florida, latitude 28.5 degrees, while Russian launches are from Baikonur, latitude 45.5 degrees. Which means most American spacecraft never come north of 28.5 degrees, so you won’t see them burning up over Colorado. Versus Russian ones, whose orbits cover pretty much the entire continental U.S.

By: S. Bahl

S. Bahl — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:01:00 +0000

I don’t want to get into a big debate over this, but does anyone think that if this were a UFO they would just come out and say, “Hey, aliens just burnt up in the sky.”? They’d probably say it was a Russian rocket. Russians hardly have enough money to eat, I highly doubt they’d just waste parts for a rocket like this.

By: Melusine

Melusine — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:32:54 +0000

ChuckA: and the one bubble-headed male anchor said the meteor was the remnant of an â€œextinct constellation.â€

I can’t recall where else I read someone else saying that. That’s a keeper…for bizzare statements! Gave me a good chuckle.

By: Jest

Jest — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:26:06 +0000

1997, I believe… just east of Vancouver, BC.. three of us were heading to our stargazing site when we all witnessed a spectacular multi-coloured light show in the sky. Looked like fireworks but was slowly moving east. We were stunned. It wasn’t until the next day that we would learn it was a Russian satellite om re-entry. Some co-workers of mine 70 km’s east also saw it. To this day it remains a highlight of my sky observing memories…

By: Felicia

Felicia — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:12:38 +0000

I hadn’t seen that, thank you for sharing. I watched the video and it was pretty spectacular!!!

By: Chuck Anziulewicz

Chuck Anziulewicz — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:55:54 +0000

I was watching the little feature that the local Fox affiliate was showing about this … and the one bubble-headed male anchor said the meteor was the remnant of an “extinct constellation.”

WTF????

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:39:32 +0000

Hey DRE:
Call 770-975-0055 and ask for Ranger Steve. (there’s only one on the Mt.). He has the skinny on nearly everything having to do with our iron melts, source of the iron, etc. We do the old timey way of melting iron and pouring it into molds. Even have a hand built blast furnace,,,Give us a call. We’ll start doing iron pour demos in the spring.

Gary 7

By: Melusine

Melusine — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:24:27 +0000

JackC: Itâ€™s a bug. Good thinking - everything in the sky is really Mothra. /-8~

By: JackC

JackC — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:18:39 +0000

It’s a bug.

By: MaDeR

MaDeR — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:29:41 +0000

Eric, law of orbital mechanic is gulity. Russians are lazy, like everyone else, and if space junk will be completely burned in reentry, then they don’t care where it will fall.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:55:21 +0000

I’m a TV news photographer. 8 or 9 years ago as I got out of the car at about 5:00am in Hartford I saw this same type of lightshow, it made great video. It was explained as Russian space junk then also. Whay is it always the Russians? Does our debris fall into the former USSR? Is that the plan or poor engineering?

By: Allison Cleckler

Allison Cleckler — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:43:31 +0000

My sister and I once saw a fireball, maybe ten or eleven years ago, when we were out watching for a meteor shower. I remember it made a whistling noise. Never did find out what it was.

By: Dean Baird

Dean Baird — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:26:24 +0000

Tell me about it, Christian! He makes last week’s poster boy (Glenn Beck) look good.