Orbital elements of meteors

Hawkins, Gerald S.; Southworth, R. B.

doi:10.5479/si.00810231.4-3.85

Cited by 32 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The drag effects would also require an increase of the mean Jacobian constant with decreasing particle size. However, a comparison of the Prairie Network T H E COMETARY AND ASTEKOIDAL OBIGINS OF METEORS Porter, 1961;Marsden, 1966, 1970cHawkins and Southworth, 1961Jacchia and Whipple, 1961Whipple, 1954McCrosky, 1968 fireballs with the faint Super-Schmidt meteors revealed just the opposite effect.…”

Section: Faint Meteorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Observed and corrected numbers of meteors within five ranges of Jacobian constant T are intercompared in tables 1 to 3, where two additional meteor samples, 144 Harvard small-camera meteors (Whipple, 1954) and 359 randomly selected faint Super-Schmidt meteors (Hawkins and Southworth, 1961) are included. Two groups of the absolutely brightest fireballs (McCrosky, 1970;Ceplecha, 1970), selected according to the end heights, and two meteorites, Pribram and Lost City, are also added.…”

Section: Faint Meteorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Cometary and Asteroidal Origins of Meteors

Kresák

1971

International Astronomical Union Colloquium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Faint Meteorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Faint Meteorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cometary and Asteroidal Origins of Meteors

Kresák

1971

International Astronomical Union Colloquium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The most accurate and/or most comprehensive list of orbits for photographic meteors are presented in the following papers: for faint meteors, papers by Jacchia and Whipple (1961), Hawkins andSouthworth (1961), andMcCrosky andPosen (1961); for orbits of meteors of intermediate brightness, Whipple (1954); and for fireballs, McCrosky (1968). However, the reader should also see Kresak (1970) for discussion of possible important observational biases in these data.…”

Section: Physical Studies Of Minor Planetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Meteors a Tool for Studying the Asteroids? Or Vice Versa?

McCrosky

1971

International Astronomical Union Colloquium

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bulk of the comments I made at the colloquium are to be found in two recent papers (McCrosky and Ceplecha, 1970; McCrosky et al., 1971). The following summary is offered in place of a full text.Most interpretations of all meteor data rely on knowledge of the relationship (luminous efficiency) between mass and luminosity. Discussions of recent experiments made to determine the luminous efficiency are found in papers by Ayers et al. (1970) and Becker and Friichtenicht (1971). Faint meteor phenomena can be understood if the meteoroids are weak, low-density (pm ≈ 0.25 g/cm3) “fluff balls” such as can be expected on the basis of Whipple's comet model (Jacchia, 1955; Jacchia et al., 1967). Alternative explanations, not requiring low densities, have been offered. Jones and Kaiser (1966) propose thermal shock of strong, high-density material as a fragmentation mechanism. Allen and Baldwin (1967) and Baldwin and Allen (1968) have reanalyzed Jacchia's data in terms of phenomena observed in the laboratory in simulated reentry experiments. Here, a high-density meteoroid froths and thereafter behaves as a low-density body. They also revise the luminosity law to account for blackbody radiation of refractory material. McCrosky and Ceplecha (1970) show that neither of these alternative explanations can apply to large bodies and, using photographic observations of bright fireballs, they defend Jacchia's original proposal for all meteors.

show abstract

“…From a random sample of 360 photographic meteors, Hawkins and Southworth (1961) concluded that 12% belonged to major streams, 13 % to known minor streams and 11 % to new streams. Nilsson (19646) examined 2200 orbits of radio meteors and finds 25 % to belong to associations which can be said to comprise streams.…”

Section: Radiant Structure In the Sporadic Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

31. The interplanetary dust cloud (survey paper)

Kaiser

1968

Symp. - Int. Astron. Union

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first part of the paper reviews the present state of knowledge of the characteristics of cosmic dust in interplanetary space. Since this is derived from a variety of observational techniques, some attempt is made critically to assess the difficulties in interpretation, particularly those due to differ ences in observational selection. Attention is drawn to the doubts that recently have arisen concerning the existence of a terrestrial dust cloud. The second part describes some radio investigations of the structure of meteor streams and of the sporadic background. Systematic variations in magnitude distribution with solar longitude which are observed in both the Geminids and Perseids cannot be simply interpreted as due to selective perturbation of the smaller meteoroids. Experimental data are described which point to the existence of considerable radiant structure in the sporadic background. IntroductionMinor objects in the solar system range in size from the asteroids to dust grains of the order of sub-micron size, which are just large enough to survive the pressures due to solar electromagnetic and corpuscular radiation. The smaller particles have a limited lifetime due to braking effects, and hence we must assume a dynamic equilib rium in which matter is continuously supplied from sources usually believed to be cometary. This is not to say that over the history of the solar system, the cosmic dust cloud has had stationary characteristics; indeed modern views of planetary evolution invoke the prior existence of cosmic dust on a considerable scale. It is perhaps only from studies of material of cosmic origin in deep-sea sediments and, to a limited extent, in tracing backwards orbital parameters obtained from meteors, that we can find direct evidence for evolutionary change in the cosmic-dust distribution.The range of sizes of the particles we are considering is so wide that no single observational technique encompasses more than a limited part and each is subject to observational selection. Nor are the size distributions obtained in different ways necessarily completely independent estimates. For instance, in interpreting the zodi acal light data it is necessary to postulate the form of the particle-size distribution and this may be obtained from meteor observations, even though these latter refer to much larger particles. Although no single method of observation leads to an unambig uous result for the abundance of cosmic dust, many attempts have been made to assemble and compare the various experimental data. One such is illustrated in

show abstract

Orbital elements of meteors

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

The Cometary and Asteroidal Origins of Meteors

The Cometary and Asteroidal Origins of Meteors

Are Meteors a Tool for Studying the Asteroids? Or Vice Versa?

31. The interplanetary dust cloud (survey paper)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About