DOCSLIB.ORG

Download This Article in PDF Format

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download This Article in PDF Format A&A 466, 729–735 (2007) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066838 & c ESO 2007 Astrophysics Optical observations of enhanced activity of the 2005 Draconid meteor shower P. Koten, J. Borovicka,ˇ P. Spurný, and R. Štork Astronomical Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Ondrejovˇ Observatory, Fricovaˇ 298, 25165 Ondrejov,ˇ Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] Received 29 November 2006 / Accepted 11 January 2007 ABSTRACT Context. The enhanced activity of the Draconid meteor shower was observed on October 8, 2005 using video and photographic cameras. Aims. The aim of this paper is to use a higher than usual number of recorded meteors to look at some physical properties of the Draconid meteoroids, to describe the activity profile, and to infer meteor orbits. Methods. Video data on meteors are used for the determination of the meteor shower activity. Double station data provide precise beginning heights of the meteors as well as their radiants and orbits. Beginning heights and light curves of all meteors are used for investigation of meteoroid properties. Results. Only the descending branch of the enhanced activity was observed between 17:30 and 19 UT. The mass distribution index is similar to the 1998 return. Beginning heights of the Draconid meteors are several kilometres higher in comparison with other meteors of similar velocity. Light curves are nearly symmetrical, with a slight preference of early maxima. Both results are consistent with the very fragile nature of Draconid meteoroids. Key words. meteors, meteoroids – comets: individual: 21P/Giacobini-Zinner 1. Introduction which additionally included smaller particles, identified that the 2005 outburst was caused by the material released during the The Draconid or Giacobinid meteor shower is a minor periodic 1946 perihelion passage of the parent comet. meteor shower, which sometimes produces brief but spectacu- In this paper we report the results of the double-station video lar meteor storms. Such storms occurred twice during last cen- experiment, which was carried out in the Czech Republic during tury, in 1933 and 1946 (e.g., Jacchia et al. 1950). Lower activ- the time of the Draconid meteor shower activity. Despite vari- ity was observed in 1952 (Davies & Lovell 1955), whereas in able weather conditions, the enhanced activity was detected and 1985 and 1998 the shower produced moderate meteor rates (Arlt simultaneous data on some of the Draconid meteors recorded. 1998). The shower is active between October 6th and 10th, with Due to later sunset in Central Europe only the descending branch a maximum occurring between October 8th and 9th. The activ- of the activity curve was probably observed. Clouds did not al- ity of the meteor shower depends on the position of the parent low us to precisely determine if the peak still occurred before the / comet 21P Giacobini-Zinner on its orbit. observation started or was already observed. In 2005 the parent comet returned to perihelion in July, We discuss here the activity profile, mass distribution, radi- but it was not clear whether it would influence activity of the ants and orbits, beginning heights, and light curves of meteors. Draconids that year. According to the modeling of the Draconids The second paper (Borovickaˇ et al. 2007) is devoted to detailed (http://www.imcee.fr/, J. Vaubaillon), no storm was ex- study of atmospheric deceleration we detected for the meteors pected to happen in October 2005. Nevertheless an enhancement and also to Draconid spectra. due to the proximity of the comet to perihelion was not possible to exclude. Thus the observers were encouraged to look for some signs of higher activity of this shower. 2. Instrumentation, observation, data processing Campbell-Brown et al. (2006) reported the Draconid out- The double-station video observations were carried out on the ◦ burst, which occurred around the solar longitude λ = 195.42 base Ondrejovˇ – Trebíˇ cˇ during three consecutive nights between corresponding to 16.1 UT, October 8, 2005. Between 14.5 UT October 6th and 9th, 2005. Both stations are separated by the and at least 18 UT, the CMOR radar detected meteor activity distance of 109.3 km, and the azimuth of the second station significantly above the sporadic background at multiple frequen- is 314.3◦ (azimuth of south = 0◦). Each station was equipped cies. The equivalent hourly binned zenithal hourly rate (ZHR) with two videocameras, which were connected to the 2nd gen- during the peak of the activity was higher than 150. The en- eration image intensifiers. At the Ondrejovˇ observatory, the di- hancement, although not as strong as that found in the radar data, rect camera equipped with a Mullard XX1332 intensifier and was also observed by visual observers located in Asia, Europe, a Jupiter 2/85 mm lens provided a field-of-view of 32◦. The sec- and North America. The visual observations provided ZHR ond camera, connected to the Dedal-41 intensifier with an Arsat of 40. Refined numerical simulation of the Draconid shower, 1.4/50 mm lens and spectral grating with 600 grooves/mm Article published by EDP Sciences and available at http://www.aanda.org or http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20066838 730 P. Koten et al.: Optical observations of enhanced activity of the 2005 Draconid meteor shower Table 1. Atmospheric trajectories and physical properties of Draconid video meteors. αG and δG are coordinates of the geocentric radiant, vG geocentric velocity, Mmax absolute maximum brightness, mphot photometric mass, HB beginning height, KB parameter according to Ceplecha (1988), HE terminal height, cos(z) cosine of the zenith distance of the radiant, and F parameter describing the meteor light curve shape. All meteors were observed in the night of October 8/9, 2005. ∗ Meteor Time αG δG (vG) Mmax mphot HB KB HE cos(z) F [UT] [◦][◦][kms−1] [mag] [g] [km] [km] 05A08030 18:55:02 264.0 ± 1.0 55.2 ± 0.6 20.9 ± 0.6 3.6 0.006 100.5 6.76 92.0 0.87 0.40 05A08054 20:33:13 263.2 ± 0.3 55.26 ± 0.08 21.0 ± 0.2 1.9 0.03 101.8 6.70 88.7 0.74 0.52 05A08057 20:39:31 264.5 ± 0.3 55.2 ± 0.2 21.0 ± 0.2 2.0 0.05 105.2 6.47 87.3 0.74 0.46 05A08078 21:59:01 261.1 ± 0.5 55.67 ± 0.09 21.0 ± 0.3 2.5 0.04 102.6 6.70 88.6 0.61 0.64 05A08096 22:56:44 264.3 ± 2.8 55.8 ± 0.7 21.0 ± 0.5 3.7 0.012 102.0 6.76 92.9 0.55 0.24 05A08128 00:13:22 262.7 ± 0.2 55.28 ± 0.16 20.9 ± 0.5 3.5 0.016 104.0 6.66 91.0 0.44 0.31 ∗ −1 Computed on the assumption of v∞ = 23.57 km s . Table 2. Heliocentric orbits (J2000.0) of the Draconid video meteors. DSH is the orbital similarity criterion computed according to Southworth & Hawkins (1967). The orbit of the comet 21P/Giacobini-Zinner (2005) provided by the JPL Horizons program was used as the reference orbit. ◦ ◦ ◦ Meteor a [AU] eq[AU] ω [ ] Ω [ ] i [ ] DSH 05A08030 3.7 ± 0.5 0.73 ± 0.04 0.9965 ± 0.0006 173.8 ± 0.7 195.517 31.5 ± 0.7 0.05 05A08054 3.7 ± 0.2 0.73 ± 0.013 0.9960 ± 0.0002 173.3 ± 0.2 195.585 31.6 ± 0.3 0.05 05A08057 3.8 ± 0.2 0.739 ± 0.014 0.9968 ± 0.0001 174.2 ± 0.2 195.589 31.6 ± 0.3 0.04 05A08078 3.4 ± 0.2 0.71 ± 0.02 0.9948 ± 0.0003 171.9 ± 0.3 195.643 31.9 ± 0.4 0.04 05A08096 3.6 ± 0.4 0.72 ± 0.03 0.9968 ± 0.0015 174 ± 2 195.683 31.8 ± 0.6 0.03 05A08128 3.5 ± 0.3 0.72 ± 0.02 0.9957 ± 0.0001 172.9 ± 0.2 195.736 31.5 ± 0.5 0.05 Comet 3.526 0.706 1.038 172.535 195.423 31.811 – was used for meteor spectroscopy. Both cameras on the sec- 3. Recorded data ond station were coupled to Dedal-41 intensifiers. The first one, equipped with an Arsat 1.4/50 mm lens, provided a field-of-view ◦ The detection software MetRec has relatively large tolerance in of 28 in diameter. The second one connected with a Zenitar the shower assignment and identified 12 video meteors observed 2.8/16 mm lens served as a wide-field system with a field-of- from both stations as possible Draconid shower members. More view of about 85◦. In addition to the video observations, one precise measurement and reduction of these records confirmed 7 bright Draconid meteor was also recorded by three all-sky pho- of them as real Draconids. One of them was recorded only in the tographic cameras of the Czech part of the European fireball net- zero order of the spectral camera and by the wide-field camera. work (see Spurný et al. 2007 for network description). Unfortunately, the small angle of planes resulted in a big trajec- The recorded video data were stored on S-VHS video tapes. tory uncertainty and this meteor was finally excluded from the These tapes were searched using automatic meteor detection sample. Atmospheric trajectories and physical properties of the software MetRec (Molau 1999). Meteor records were digital- six remaining double station Draconid meteors are summarized × ized with resolution 25 images per second and 768 576 pixels.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Major Meteor Showers Throughout the Year
    Major Meteor Showers Throughout the Year Courtesy of The Catawba Valley Astronomy Club - www.catawbasky.org Information taken from http://www.amsmeteors.org/showers.html The meteor showers discussed below recur each year; in some cases they have been recognized for hundreds of years. The name of the shower in most cases indicates the constellation from which the meteors appear. Sporadic meteors are those random meteors not associated with a particular shower; they are the random detritus left over from the creation of the solar system or are old dispersed debris not recognizable today as shower meteors. For meteor observers, those located in the northern hemisphere have a distinct advantage as shower activity is stronger there than that seen by observers located south of the equator. The reason for this is that most of the major showers have meteors that strike the Earth in areas located far above the equator. As seen from the northern hemisphere these meteors would appear to rain down from high in the sky in all directions. The year begins with the intense but brief Quadrantid maximum (January 3/4). Its brevity combined with typically poor winter weather hampers observation. January overall has good meteor rates restricted to the last third of the night. Rates to 20/hour can be obtained. A large number of radiants spread along the ecliptic from Cancer to Virgo. This activity diminishes somewhat in February with the same areas active. Late-night rates are fair in the first half of March, but become poor rather suddenly after mid-March. The very poor rates, seldom reaching 10/hour, continue into early June.
    [Show full text]
  • Geminid Meteor Shower Activity Should Increase
    EPSC Abstracts Vol. 12, EPSC2018-397, 2018 European Planetary Science Congress 2018 EEuropeaPn PlanetarSy Science CCongress c Author(s) 2018 Geminid meteor shower activity should increase Galina O. Ryabova (1), Jurgen Rendtel (2) (1) Research Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics of Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russian Federation ([email protected]), (2) Leibniz-Institut fur Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Germany Abstract 2. Model Mathematical modelling has shown that activity of We used one a model with meteoroids of the ‘visual’ the Geminid meteor shower should rise with time, mass of 0.02 g from [6] and extended it until 2025 and that was confirmed by analysis of visual January 1. The model consists of 30 000 meteoroids observations 1985–2017. generated around starting epoch JD 1720165.2248 (perihelion passage) using, as we mentioned, the cometary scenario of ejection. For details of the 1. Introduction model, method, and references, see [6]. The Geminid meteor shower is an annual major shower with the maximum activity on December 14. Why activity should increase? The answer is clear In 2017, asteroid (3200) Phaethon, recognised parent from Fig. 1. Phaethon’s node and the mean orbit of body of the stream, had a close encounter with the the stream (i.e. the densest part of the stream) Earth on December 16. When the Earth passes closer gradually approach the Earth’s orbit. So the Geminid to a parent body orbit of a meteoroid stream, an shower activity should increase slowly. Why we increased activity of the shower is expected. We should not expect an outburst? Because the Geminid elaborated the model to see, if it is the case, and stream had no replenishment after the initial made a comparison with visual and video catastrophic generation [2, 6].
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Article in PDF Format
    A&A 598, A40 (2017) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629659 & c ESO 2017 Astrophysics Separation and confirmation of showers? L. Neslušan1 and M. Hajduková, Jr.2 1 Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 05960 Tatranska Lomnica, Slovak Republic e-mail: [email protected] 2 Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 84504 Bratislava, Slovak Republic e-mail: [email protected] Received 6 September 2016 / Accepted 30 October 2016 ABSTRACT Aims. Using IAU MDC photographic, IAU MDC CAMS video, SonotaCo video, and EDMOND video databases, we aim to separate all provable annual meteor showers from each of these databases. We intend to reveal the problems inherent in this procedure and answer the question whether the databases are complete and the methods of separation used are reliable. We aim to evaluate the statistical significance of each separated shower. In this respect, we intend to give a list of reliably separated showers rather than a list of the maximum possible number of showers. Methods. To separate the showers, we simultaneously used two methods. The use of two methods enables us to compare their results, and this can indicate the reliability of the methods. To evaluate the statistical significance, we suggest a new method based on the ideas of the break-point method. Results. We give a compilation of the showers from all four databases using both methods. Using the first (second) method, we separated 107 (133) showers, which are in at least one of the databases used. These relatively low numbers are a consequence of discarding any candidate shower with a poor statistical significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Risk from Dangerous Meteoroids in Main Meteor Showers Andrey Murtazov
    Proceedings of the IMC, Mistelbach, 2015 155 Assessing risk from dangerous meteoroids in main meteor showers Andrey Murtazov Astronomical observatory, Ryazan State University, Ryazan, Russia [email protected] The risk from dangerous meteoroids in main meteor showers is calculated. The showers were: Quadrantids–2014; Eta Aquariids–2013, Perseids–2014 and Geminids–2014. The computed results for the risks during the shower periods of activity and near the maximum are provided. 1 Introduction The activity periods of these showers (IMO) are: Quadrantids–2014; 1d; Eta Aquariids–2013; 10d, Bright meteors are of serious hazard for space vehicles. Perseids–2014; 14d and Geminids–2014; 4d. A lot of attention has been recently paid to meteor Our calculations have shown that the average collisions N investigations in the context of the different types of of dangerous meteoroids for these showers in their hazards caused by comparatively small meteoroids. activity periods are: Furthermore, the investigation of risk distribution related Quadrantids–2014: N = (2.6 ± 0.5)10-2 km-2; to collisions of meteoroids over 1 mm in diameter with Eta Aquariids–2013: N = (2.8)10-1 km-2; space vehicles is quite important for the long-term Perseids–2014: N = (8.4 ± 0.8)10-2 km-2; forecast regarding the development of space research and Geminids–2014: N = (4.8 ± 0.8)10-2 km-2. circumterrestrial ecology problems (Beech, et al., 1997; Wiegert, Vaubaillon, 2009). Consequently, the average value of collision risk was: Considered hazardous are the meteoroids that create -2 -1 Quadrantids–2014: R = 0.03 km day ; meteors brighter than magnitude 0.
    [Show full text]
  • 17. a Working List of Meteor Streams
    PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED. 17. A Working List of Meteor Streams ALLAN F. COOK Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Cambridge, Massachusetts HIS WORKING LIST which starts on the next is convinced do exist. It is perhaps still too corn- page has been compiled from the following prehensive in that there arc six streams with sources: activity near the threshold of detection by pho- tography not related to any known comet and (1) A selection by myself (Cook, 1973) from not sho_m to be active for as long as a decade. a list by Lindblad (1971a), which he found Unless activity can be confirmed in earlier or from a computer search among 2401 orbits of later years or unless an associated comet ap- meteors photographed by the Harvard Super- pears, these streams should probably be dropped Sehmidt cameras in New Mexico (McCrosky and from a later version of this list. The author will Posen, 1961) be much more receptive to suggestions for dele- (2) Five additional radiants found by tions from this list than he will be to suggestions McCrosky and Posen (1959) by a visual search for additions I;o it. Clear evidence that the thresh- among the radiants and velocities of the same old for visual detection of a stream has been 2401 meteors passed (as in the case of the June Lyrids) should (3) A further visual search among these qualify it for permanent inclusion. radiants and velocities by Cook, Lindblad, A comment on the matching sets of orbits is Marsden, McCrosky, and Posen (1973) in order. It is the directions of perihelion that (4) A computer search
    [Show full text]
  • Meteor Shower Detection with Density-Based Clustering
    Meteor Shower Detection with Density-Based Clustering Glenn Sugar1*, Althea Moorhead2, Peter Brown3, and William Cooke2 1Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 2NASA Meteoroid Environment Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, 35812 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London N6A3K7, Canada *Corresponding author, E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We present a new method to detect meteor showers using the Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise algorithm (DBSCAN; Ester et al. 1996). DBSCAN is a modern cluster detection algorithm that is well suited to the problem of extracting meteor showers from all-sky camera data because of its ability to efficiently extract clusters of different shapes and sizes from large datasets. We apply this shower detection algorithm on a dataset that contains 25,885 meteor trajectories and orbits obtained from the NASA All-Sky Fireball Network and the Southern Ontario Meteor Network (SOMN). Using a distance metric based on solar longitude, geocentric velocity, and Sun-centered ecliptic radiant, we find 25 strong cluster detections and 6 weak detections in the data, all of which are good matches to known showers. We include measurement errors in our analysis to quantify the reliability of cluster occurrence and the probability that each meteor belongs to a given cluster. We validate our method through false positive/negative analysis and with a comparison to an established shower detection algorithm. 1. Introduction A meteor shower and its stream is implicitly defined to be a group of meteoroids moving in similar orbits sharing a common parentage.
    [Show full text]
  • EPSC2015-482, 2015 European Planetary Science Congress 2015 Eeuropeapn Planetarsy Science Ccongress C Author(S) 2015
    EPSC Abstracts Vol. 10, EPSC2015-482, 2015 European Planetary Science Congress 2015 EEuropeaPn PlanetarSy Science CCongress c Author(s) 2015 Recent meteor showers – models and observations P. Koten (1) and J. Vaubaillon (2) (1) Astronomical Institute of ACSR, Ond řejov, Czech Republic, (2) Institut de mecanique Celeste et de Calcul des Ephemerides, Paris, France ([email protected] / Fax: +420-323-620263) Abstract 3. Meteor showers A number of meteor shower outbursts and storms Among the most studied meteor showers is the occurred in recent years starting with several Leonid Leonids due to recent return of their parent comet. storms around 2000 [1]. The methods of modeling Outbursts and storms between 1998 and 2002 and meteoroid streams became better and more precise. also another event in 2009 were observed and An increasing number of observing systems enabled analyzed. The Draconid outbursts in 2005 and 2011 better coverage of such events. The observers were also covered. Especially the latter was observed provide modelers with an important feedback on intensively using different instruments onboard two precision of their models. Here we present aircraft [4]. comparison of several observational results with the model predictions. 1. Introduction The double station observations using video technique are carried out by the Ondrejov observatory team for many years [2]. Besides the regular observations of the meteor showers the campaigns are also dedicated to predicted meteor storms and outbursts. The team participated to several international campaigns during recent Leonid meteor shower return as well as on the Draconid airborne campaign in 2011. The main goal of this experiment is the determination of the meteor trajectories and orbits and the meteor shower activity is also measured and compared with predictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Meteor Showers # 11.Pptx
    20-05-31 Meteor Showers Adolf Vollmy Sources of Meteors • Comets • Asteroids • Reentering debris C/2019 Y4 Atlas Brett Hardy 1 20-05-31 Terminology • Meteoroid • Meteor • Meteorite • Fireball • Bolide • Sporadic • Meteor Shower • Meteor Storm Meteors in Our Atmosphere • Mesosphere • Atmospheric heating • Radiant • Zenithal Hourly Rate (ZHR) 2 20-05-31 Equipment Lounge chair Blanket or sleeping bag Hot beverage Bug repellant - ThermaCELL Camera & tripod Tracking Viewing Considerations • Preparation ! Locate constellation ! Take a nap and set alarm ! Practice photography • Location: dark & unobstructed • Time: midnight to dawn https://earthsky.org/astronomy- essentials/earthskys-meteor-shower- guide https://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor- showers/meteor-shower-calendar/ • Where to look: 50° up & 45-60° from radiant • Challenges: fatigue, cold, insects, Moon • Recording observations ! Sky map, pen, red light & clipboard ! Time, position & location ! Recording device & time piece • Binoculars Getty 3 20-05-31 Meteor Showers • 112 confirmed meteor showers • 695 awaiting confirmation • Naming Convention ! C/2019 Y4 (Atlas) ! (3200) Phaethon June Tau Herculids (m) Parent body: 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann Peak: June 2 – ZHR = 3 Slow moving – 15 km/s Moon: Waning Gibbous June Bootids (m) Parent body: 7p/Pons-Winnecke Peak: June 27– ZHR = variable Slow moving – 14 km/s Moon: Waxing Crescent Perseid by Brian Colville 4 20-05-31 July Delta Aquarids Parent body: 96P/Machholz Peak: July 28 – ZHR = 20 Intermediate moving – 41 km/s Moon: Waxing Gibbous Alpha
    [Show full text]
  • Smithsonian Contributions Astrophysics
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS to ASTROPHYSICS Number 14 Discrete Levels off Beginning Height off Meteors in Streams By A. F. Cook Number 15 Yet Another Stream Search Among 2401 Photographic Meteors By A. F. Cook, B.-A. Lindblad, B. G. Marsden, R. E. McCrosky, and A. Posen Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory Smithsonian Institution Press SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ASTROPHYSICS NUMBER 14 A. F. cook Discrete Levels of Beginning Height of Meteors in Streams SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1973 Publications of the Smithsonian Institution Astrophysical Observatory This series, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics, was inaugurated in 1956 to provide a proper communication for the results of research conducted at the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution. Its purpose is the "increase and diffusion of knowledge" in the field of astrophysics, with particular emphasis on problems of the sun, the earth, and the solar system. Its pages are open to a limited number of papers by other investigators with whom we have common interests. Another series, Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory, was started in 1900 by the Observa- tory's first director, Samuel P. Langley, and was published about every ten years. These quarto volumes, some of which are still available, record the history of the Observatory's researches and activities. The last volume (vol. 7) appeared in 1954. Many technical papers and volumes emanating from the Astrophysical Observatory have appeared in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Among these are Smithsonian Physical Tables, Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, and World Weather Records. Additional information concerning these publications can be obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2019 Meteor Shower Activity Forecast for Low Earth Orbit 1 Overview
    NASA METEOROID ENVIRONMENT OFFICE The 2019 meteor shower activity forecast for low Earth orbit Issued 15 October 2018 The purpose of this document is to provide a forecast of major meteor shower activity in low Earth orbit. Several meteor showers – the Draconids, Perseids, eta Aquariids, Orionids, and potentially the Androme- dids – are predicted to exhibit increased rates in 2019. However, no storms (meteor showers with visual rates exceeding 1000 [1, 2]) are predicted. 1 Overview Both the MSFC stream model [3] and the Egal et al. Draconid model [4] predict a second Draconid outburst in 2019. The 2019 Draconids are expected to have nearly the same level of activity as the 2018 Draconids, which reached a zenithal hourly rate (or ZHR) of about 100. Twin outbursts also occurred in 2011 and 2012 [5, 6]. The Perseids, eta Aquariids, and Orionids are expected to show mild enhancements over their baseline activity level in 2019. The Perseids are expected to be slightly more active in 2019 than in 2018, with a peak ZHR around 112. The eta Aquariids and Orionids, which belong to a single meteoroid stream generated by comet 1P/Halley, are thought to have a 12-year activity cycle and are currently increasing in activity from year to year. A review of eta Aquariid literature [7, 8, 9, 10] also indicates that the overall activity level is higher than previously believed, and this is reflected in higher forecasted rates (a ZHR of 75) and fluxes for this shower. We may see enhanced beta Taurid activity in 2019. The beta Taurids are part of the same stream as the Northern and Southern Taurids but produce daytime meteors.
    [Show full text]
  • Radar Meteors Range Distribution Model
    Contrib. Astron. Obs. Skalnat´ePleso 37, 147 – 160, (2007) Radar meteors range distribution model III. Ablation, shape-density and self-similarity parameters D. Pecinov´aand P. Pecina Astronomical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences 251 65 Ondˇrejov, The Czech Republic, (E-mail: [email protected]) Received: January 23, 2007; Accepted: July 3, 2007 Abstract. The theoretical radar meteors Range Distribution of the overdense echoes developed by Pecinov´aand Pecina (2007 a) is applied here to observed range distributions of meteors belonging to the Quadrantid, Perseid, Leonid, Geminid, γ Draconid (Giacobinid), ζ Perseid and β Taurid streams to study the variability of the shape-density, ablation, and self-similarity parameters of meteoroids of these streams. We have found in accordance with results of photographical observations that ablation parameter σ is higher for members of showers of clearly cometary origin, and is lower for Geminid and daytime shower meteoroids. Levin’s self-similarity parameter µ was found to be much greater than the classical value 2/3 for all investigated streams with the exception of Geminids, for which the value found is almost classical, i. e. 0.66 ± 0.01. The method of getting µ by means of fitting the light curve of faint TV meteors is also suggested. Key words: physics of meteors – radar meteors – range distribution – ablation, shape density and self-similarity parameters 1. Introduction At the very beginning, our aim was to develop a model allowing for the com- putation of fluxes and mass distribution indices of meteor showers. To achieve this goal, we developed the radar meteors range distribution model (RaDiM) (Pecinov´aand Pecina, 2007 a) which we will refer to as Paper I.
    [Show full text]
  • 3D/Biela and the Andromedids: Fragmenting Versus Sublimating Comets P
    The Astronomical Journal, 134:1037 Y 1045, 2007 September # 2007. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. 3D/BIELA AND THE ANDROMEDIDS: FRAGMENTING VERSUS SUBLIMATING COMETS P. Jenniskens1 and J. Vaubaillon2 Received 2007 January 3; accepted 2007 April 22 ABSTRACT Comet 3D/Biela broke up in 1842/1843 and continued to disintegrate in the returns of 1846 and 1852. When meteor storms were observed in November of 1872 and 1885, it was surmised that those showers were the debris from that breakup. This could have come from one of two sources: (1) the initial separation of fragments near aphelion or (2) the continued disintegration of the fragments afterward. Alternatively, the meteoroids could simply have come from water vapor drag when the fragments approached perihelion (option 3). We investigated the source of the Andromedid storms by calculating the dynamical evolution of dust ejected in a normal manner by water vapor drag in the returns from 1703 to 1866, assuming that the comet would have remained similarly active over each return. In addition, we simulated the isotropic ejection of dust during the initial fragmentation event at aphelion in December of 1842. We conclude that option 2 is the most likely source of meteoroids encountered during the 1872 and 1885 storms, but this accounts for only a relatively small amount of mass lost in a typical comet breakup. Key words: comets: individual (3D/Biela) — meteors, meteoroids — minor planets, asteroids 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE COMET AND ITS SHOWER Ever since Whipple (1951) showed that water vapor can ac- 2.1.
    [Show full text]