No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Meteoroid Properties from Photographic Records of Meteors and Fireballs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2016
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Statistical criteria based on the single-body theory enabled the distinction of different composition groups of meteoroids in the past. The new single-body model proposed by Pecina and Ceplecha (1983, 1984) is capable of determining the individual values of ablation coefficients, which has proved to be a better tool for separating meteoroids of different ablation properties. However, a significant fraction of fireballs exhibit a time-dependence of residuals, when the single-body model is applied to their photographic observations. This was recently explained by assuming sudden fragmentation at a point (gross-fragmentation). The proposed gross-fragmentation model was checked in exceptional cases, when splitting of a fireball was directly visible on the photographs. The new fragmentation model was then applied to the best photographic records of Prairie Network fireballs (PN). Least-squares fit of computed to observed distances along a meteoroid trajectory determines uniquely the ablation coefficient, the shape-density coefficient, the position of the gross-fragmentation point and the amount of fragmented material relative to the main body mass. This enabled not only a better classification according to ablation coefficient (composition groups), but also a recognition of different strength categories according to dynamic pressure at the fragmentation point. Except for composition groups (types) I, II, IIIA, IIIB, each meteoroid with precise photographic data on its fireball can be classified as NF (no-fragmenting), 1F (with one point of fragmentation) and MF (with many points of fragmentation). The fragmenting meteoroids (1F and MF) can moreover be sorted into several categories (a, b, c, d, e) according to dynamic pressure at the fragmentation point. Thus the classification became two dimensional, separating meteoroid composition from structure. Values of ablation coefficients and bulk-densities were revised using this model. The amount of fragmented mass relatively to the main body was also determined. Typical sudden fragmentation for almost half of all fragmenting meteoroids is equivalent to stripping away slightly more than half of the mass.
- Type
- Physical Observations and Modeling
- Information
- Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 160: Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1993 , 1994 , pp. 343 - 356
- Copyright
- Copyright © Kluwer 1994
References
Ceplecha, Z.: 1967, “Classification of meteor orbits.”
Smithson. Contr. Astrophys., 11, 35.Google Scholar
Ceplecha, Z.: 1968, “Discrete levels of meteor beginning height.”
Smithson. Astrophys. Obs. Spec. Rep., 279, 1.Google Scholar
Ceplecha, Z.: 1988, “Earth's influx of different populations of sporadic meteoroids from photographic and television data.”
Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechosl., 39, 221.Google Scholar
Ceplecha, Z.: 1992, “Influx of interplanetary bodies onto Earth.”
Astron. Astrophys., 263, 361.Google Scholar
Ceplecha, Z. and Borovička, J.: 1992, “Meteors.” In Interrelations between Physics and Dynamics for Minor Bodies in the Solar System (Benest, D., Froeschlé, Cl., Eds.), 309–368, Editions Frontières, Gif–sur–Yvette, France.Google Scholar
Ceplecha, Z. and McCrosky, R.E.: 1976, “Fireball end heights: a diagnostic for the structure of meteoric material.”
J. Geophys. Res., 81, 6257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceplecha, Z. and McCrosky, R.E.: 1992, “Gross-fragmentation of meteoroids and bulk density of Geminids from photographic fireball records.” In Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1991 (Harris, A.W. and Bowell, E., Eds.), 109–112, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, USA.Google Scholar
Ceplecha, Z., Spurný, P., Borovička, J. and Keclíková, J.: 1993, “Atmospheric fragmentation of meteoroids.”
Astron. Astrophys., 279, 615.Google Scholar
Halliday, I., Blackwell, A.T. and Griffin, A.A.: 1984, “The frequency of meteorite falls on Earth.”
Science, 223, 1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, I., Blackwell, A.T. and Griffin, A.A.: 1989, “Detailed records of many unrecovered meteorites in western Canada for which further searches are recommended.”
J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Canada, 83, 49.Google Scholar
Hills, J.G. and Goda, M.P.: 1993, “The fragmentation of small asteroids in the atmosphere.”
Astron. J., 105, 1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrosky, R.E. and Ceplecha, Z.: 1969, “Photographic networks for fireballs.” In Meteorite Research (Millman, P.E., Ed.), 600, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrosky, R. E., Posen, A., Schwartz, G. and Shao, C.-Y.: 1971, “Lost City meteorite: its recovery and a comparison with other fireballs.”
J. Geophys. Res., 76, 4090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrosky, R. E., Shao, C.-Y. and Posen, A.: 1977, “Prairie Network Fireball Data.”
Center for Astrophysics, Preprint Series, Nos. 665, 721.Google Scholar
Pecina, P. and Ceplecha, Z.: 1983, “New aspects in single-body meteor physics.”
Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechosl., 34, 102.Google Scholar
Pecina, P. and Ceplecha, Z.: 1984, “Importance of atmospheric models for interpretation of photographic fireball data.”
Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechosl., 35, 120.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, D.: 1993, “The size distribution of the Earth-approaching asteroids”. Astroph. J., 407, 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekanina, Z.: 1983, “The Tunguska event: no cometary signature in evidence”. Astron. J., 88, 1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherill, G.W. and ReVelle, D.O.: 1981a, “Which fireballs are meteorites? A study of the Prairie Network Photographic Meteor Data”. Icarus, 48, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherill, G.W. and ReVelle, D.O.: 1981b, “Relationships between comets, large meteors, and meteorites”. In Comets (Wilkening, L., Ed.), 297, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, USA.Google Scholar
You have
Access