APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 5545
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by APOD Robot » Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:05 am

Image Meteor over the Bay of Naples

Explanation: A cosmic dust grain plowing through the upper atmosphere much faster than a falling leaf created this brilliant meteor streak. In a serendipitous moment, the sublime night sky view was captured from the resort island of Capri, in the Bay of Naples, on the evening of February 8. Looking across the bay, the camera faces northeast toward the lights of Naples and surrounding cities. Pointing toward the horizon, the meteor streak by chance ends above the silhouette of Mount Vesuvius. One of planet Earth's most famous volcanos, an eruption of Mount Vesuvius destroyed the city of Pompeii in 79 AD.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>

epitalon
Ensign
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:05 am

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by epitalon » Sat Feb 17, 2024 2:40 pm

I apreciated the "falling leaf" story

User avatar
GoatGuy
Asternaut
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:38 pm
AKA: Oats4Goats

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by GoatGuy » Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:01 pm

Lovely shot.

I was wondering how big such a meteor could be. Various sources say things like 'less than a centimeter' and 'millimeters or so'. I guess so. Then I decided to use the other "can be brighter than Venus" to work some Excel magic, to figure out how big a bit-o-dust it might have been.

Using drivers of

Venus insolation = 2700 W/m²
… diameter 12,000 km
Bright arc of 30%
Bright distance about 75% of 1 AU from Earth

Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"

That turned out to be 34,000 W of optical power.

From there and E = ½mv², estimating the velocity at 30 km/s, then the little morsel need only weigh in at 0.07 grams. And, while that's not very much, if the meteor is 'stony' say, with a 6 g/cm³ density, then that's about 0.012 cm³, 0.28 cm diameter, about 3 millimeters.

3 mm is yep … still a grain of sand … but not fine sand. Big coarse sand.

Working that 100% backwards, all the numbers confirmed out pretty well. So … 3 to 10 mm chunk of star stuff! Yay!

⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
GoatGuy -- Because discussion is awesome especially when debating facts...

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:23 pm

GoatGuy wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:01 pm Lovely shot.

I was wondering how big such a meteor could be. Various sources say things like 'less than a centimeter' and 'millimeters or so'. I guess so. Then I decided to use the other "can be brighter than Venus" to work some Excel magic, to figure out how big a bit-o-dust it might have been.

Using drivers of

Venus insolation = 2700 W/m²
… diameter 12,000 km
Bright arc of 30%
Bright distance about 75% of 1 AU from Earth

Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"

That turned out to be 34,000 W of optical power.

From there and E = ½mv², estimating the velocity at 30 km/s, then the little morsel need only weigh in at 0.07 grams. And, while that's not very much, if the meteor is 'stony' say, with a 6 g/cm³ density, then that's about 0.012 cm³, 0.28 cm diameter, about 3 millimeters.

3 mm is yep … still a grain of sand … but not fine sand. Big coarse sand.

Working that 100% backwards, all the numbers confirmed out pretty well. So … 3 to 10 mm chunk of star stuff! Yay!

⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
What's tricky, and generally makes such calculations of limited value, is that the references are parked over the same cluster of pixels, while the meteor is moving. What that means is that the references are exposed for much longer, making their apparent brightness greater than the meteor, which is only dwelling on a pixel for a short time. Consider that an exposure like this is typically 30 seconds long, while the meteor duration is on the order of a second, and only on any one pixel for a fraction of that. So the actual meteor could easily be 100 times brighter than the image would suggest.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13756
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Ann » Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:46 pm

I note that the meteor is mostly cyan-colored. :yes:

Does anyone recognize the star field beyond the meteor? I note a bright blue star at upper right. Anyone know what star that is?

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:57 pm

Ann wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:46 pm I note that the meteor is mostly cyan-colored. :yes:

Does anyone recognize the star field beyond the meteor? I note a bright blue star at upper right. Anyone know what star that is?

Ann
Alkaid... end of the Big Dipper handle.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:17 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:23 pm
GoatGuy wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:01 pm Lovely shot.

I was wondering how big such a meteor could be. Various sources say things like 'less than a centimeter' and 'millimeters or so'. I guess so. Then I decided to use the other "can be brighter than Venus" to work some Excel magic, to figure out how big a bit-o-dust it might have been.

Using drivers of

Venus insolation = 2700 W/m²
… diameter 12,000 km
Bright arc of 30%
Bright distance about 75% of 1 AU from Earth

Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"

That turned out to be 34,000 W of optical power.

From there and E = ½mv², estimating the velocity at 30 km/s, then the little morsel need only weigh in at 0.07 grams. And, while that's not very much, if the meteor is 'stony' say, with a 6 g/cm³ density, then that's about 0.012 cm³, 0.28 cm diameter, about 3 millimeters.

3 mm is yep … still a grain of sand … but not fine sand. Big coarse sand.

Working that 100% backwards, all the numbers confirmed out pretty well. So … 3 to 10 mm chunk of star stuff! Yay!

⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
What's tricky, and generally makes such calculations of limited value, is that the references are parked over the same cluster of pixels, while the meteor is moving. What that means is that the references are exposed for much longer, making their apparent brightness greater than the meteor, which is only dwelling on a pixel for a short time. Consider that an exposure like this is typically 30 seconds long, while the meteor duration is on the order of a second, and only on any one pixel for a fraction of that. So the actual meteor could easily be 100 times brighter than the image would suggest.
What "references"? The calculations should be correct independent of brightness measurements by CCDs , right?
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:19 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:17 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:23 pm
GoatGuy wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:01 pm Lovely shot.

I was wondering how big such a meteor could be. Various sources say things like 'less than a centimeter' and 'millimeters or so'. I guess so. Then I decided to use the other "can be brighter than Venus" to work some Excel magic, to figure out how big a bit-o-dust it might have been.

Using drivers of

Venus insolation = 2700 W/m²
… diameter 12,000 km
Bright arc of 30%
Bright distance about 75% of 1 AU from Earth

Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"

That turned out to be 34,000 W of optical power.

From there and E = ½mv², estimating the velocity at 30 km/s, then the little morsel need only weigh in at 0.07 grams. And, while that's not very much, if the meteor is 'stony' say, with a 6 g/cm³ density, then that's about 0.012 cm³, 0.28 cm diameter, about 3 millimeters.

3 mm is yep … still a grain of sand … but not fine sand. Big coarse sand.

Working that 100% backwards, all the numbers confirmed out pretty well. So … 3 to 10 mm chunk of star stuff! Yay!

⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
What's tricky, and generally makes such calculations of limited value, is that the references are parked over the same cluster of pixels, while the meteor is moving. What that means is that the references are exposed for much longer, making their apparent brightness greater than the meteor, which is only dwelling on a pixel for a short time. Consider that an exposure like this is typically 30 seconds long, while the meteor duration is on the order of a second, and only on any one pixel for a fraction of that. So the actual meteor could easily be 100 times brighter than the image would suggest.
What "references"? The calculations should be correct independent of brightness measurements by CCDs , right?
The stars or planets with known magnitudes that are being used for reference. In the above calculation, Venus is the reference. If Venus is exposed for 30 seconds, and the meteor for 0.1 second, we have a problem.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13756
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Ann » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:33 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:57 pm
Ann wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:46 pm I note that the meteor is mostly cyan-colored. :yes:

Does anyone recognize the star field beyond the meteor? I note a bright blue star at upper right. Anyone know what star that is?

Ann
Alkaid... end of the Big Dipper handle.
Thanks, Chris!

Ann
Color Commentator

rwlott
Ensign
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by rwlott » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:33 pm

epitalon wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 2:40 pm I apreciated the "falling leaf" story
I, too, appreciate this O Henry classic short story. Kudos to the APOD editors for including a link to it. By the way, I’m convinced that there are many persons whose lives are saved, or at least the quality of their lives are significantly improved, by caring acts of friends and neighbors.

Russ

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:36 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:19 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:17 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 5:23 pm
What's tricky, and generally makes such calculations of limited value, is that the references are parked over the same cluster of pixels, while the meteor is moving. What that means is that the references are exposed for much longer, making their apparent brightness greater than the meteor, which is only dwelling on a pixel for a short time. Consider that an exposure like this is typically 30 seconds long, while the meteor duration is on the order of a second, and only on any one pixel for a fraction of that. So the actual meteor could easily be 100 times brighter than the image would suggest.
What "references"? The calculations should be correct independent of brightness measurements by CCDs , right?
The stars or planets with known magnitudes that are being used for reference. In the above calculation, Venus is the reference. If Venus is exposed for 30 seconds, and the meteor for 0.1 second, we have a problem.
Hmm. But the OP's statement:
Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"
Is using the brightness of Venus as a seemingly observer-independent 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m², and calculating the attributes of the meteor that would match it. A watt has time factored in already. I'm still not seeing where the problem lies.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:40 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:36 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:19 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:17 pm

What "references"? The calculations should be correct independent of brightness measurements by CCDs , right?
The stars or planets with known magnitudes that are being used for reference. In the above calculation, Venus is the reference. If Venus is exposed for 30 seconds, and the meteor for 0.1 second, we have a problem.
Hmm. But the OP's statement:
Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"
Is using the brightness of Venus as a seemingly observer-independent 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m², and calculating the attributes of the meteor that would match it. A watt has time factored in already. I'm still not seeing where the problem lies.
How does his calculation connect to the image?
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:40 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:36 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:19 pm

The stars or planets with known magnitudes that are being used for reference. In the above calculation, Venus is the reference. If Venus is exposed for 30 seconds, and the meteor for 0.1 second, we have a problem.
Hmm. But the OP's statement:
Determined that Venus must bathe Earth with about 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² at its brightest. Then went on to ask mathematically "how much output would a meteor at 45 km altitude have to produce in order to also have that 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m² where the observer is standing?"
Is using the brightness of Venus as a seemingly observer-independent 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m², and calculating the attributes of the meteor that would match it. A watt has time factored in already. I'm still not seeing where the problem lies.
How does his calculation connect to the image?
Well, are you saying that brightness comparisons using even the naked eye are highly affected by the duration of the event? I can see that might matter. Maybe a lot.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:55 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:46 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:40 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:36 pm

Hmm. But the OP's statement:



Is using the brightness of Venus as a seemingly observer-independent 1.3×10⁻⁶ W/m², and calculating the attributes of the meteor that would match it. A watt has time factored in already. I'm still not seeing where the problem lies.
How does his calculation connect to the image?
Well, are you saying that brightness comparisons using even the naked eye are highly affected by the duration of the event? I can see that might matter. Maybe a lot.
Well, yes, estimating the magnitude of a meteor visually is a tricky business, and its speed is definitely a factor. But what I'm talking about here is trying to derive the brightness of a meteor from a still image like this one.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

snak88

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by snak88 » Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:03 pm

Seems fake to me, the meteor not behind the clouds enough, and just so happens to be pointing to the volcano. AI generated, how will we know?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:08 pm

snak88 wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:03 pm Seems fake to me, the meteor not behind the clouds enough, and just so happens to be pointing to the volcano. AI generated, how will we know?
Looks perfectly fine to me. There's some reddening of the trail where it's behind clouds, and a little bit of blue scatter off segments with less cloudiness. Nothing about this looks faked.

Also, the imager has a long history of collecting these sorts of images (predating any AI image generators) as well as other astronomical landscapes.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:15 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:55 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:46 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:40 pm
How does his calculation connect to the image?
Well, are you saying that brightness comparisons using even the naked eye are highly affected by the duration of the event? I can see that might matter. Maybe a lot.
Well, yes, estimating the magnitude of a meteor visually is a tricky business, and its speed is definitely a factor. But what I'm talking about here is trying to derive the brightness of a meteor from a still image like this one.
Ok, got it. But the OP didn't seem to be referencing this image particularly, just the comparison of Venus to a meteor in general. So, the math should be correct regardless (though I actually didn't check it).
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18526
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:25 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:15 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:55 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:46 pm

Well, are you saying that brightness comparisons using even the naked eye are highly affected by the duration of the event? I can see that might matter. Maybe a lot.
Well, yes, estimating the magnitude of a meteor visually is a tricky business, and its speed is definitely a factor. But what I'm talking about here is trying to derive the brightness of a meteor from a still image like this one.
Ok, got it. But the OP didn't seem to be referencing this image particularly, just the comparison of Venus to a meteor in general. So, the math should be correct regardless (though I actually didn't check it).
I read the post as referencing this image ("such a meteor", "how big... it might have been", and similar).

I take the calculation to be a sort of back-of-the-envelope analysis, and as such it is quite reasonable (but not really if applied to this image).

More rigorously, we estimate the mass of meteoroids by integrating the luminosity over their path (which typically requires video data, not a long exposure still image like this one) and applying one or more mass-luminosity calculations to that (which also requires the inclusion of a luminous efficiency term... rarely known... since different materials ablate quite differently).
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Meteor over the Bay of Naples (2024 Feb 17)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:31 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:25 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 7:15 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:55 pm

Well, yes, estimating the magnitude of a meteor visually is a tricky business, and its speed is definitely a factor. But what I'm talking about here is trying to derive the brightness of a meteor from a still image like this one.
Ok, got it. But the OP didn't seem to be referencing this image particularly, just the comparison of Venus to a meteor in general. So, the math should be correct regardless (though I actually didn't check it).
I read the post as referencing this image ("such a meteor", "how big... it might have been", and similar).

I take the calculation to be a sort of back-of-the-envelope analysis, and as such it is quite reasonable (but not really if applied to this image).

More rigorously, we estimate the mass of meteoroids by integrating the luminosity over their path (which typically requires video data, not a long exposure still image like this one) and applying one or more mass-luminosity calculations to that (which also requires the inclusion of a luminous efficiency term... rarely known... since different materials ablate quite differently).
Ok, thanks for indulging me. I used to be able to do integrals, maybe even "path integrals". I was a wiz at math...once. But that was a long time ago.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}