Meteor Storm Went from Sizzle to Fizzle
The May Camelopardalids meteor outburst turned out to be a dud, because meteor storm prediction is not a sure thing, unlike, for example, calculating the next eclipse
By Ken Croswell & Steve Mirsky
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
What if they held a meteor storm and no meteors came? That's what many people are asking after the well-hyped May Camelopardalids meteor outburst turned out to be a dud.
Most meteors arise from mere dust grains and pebbles in space. When Earth passes through a stream of this debris shed by a comet, the particles burn up in our atmosphere, and we see a meteor shower.
Some astronomers had predicted that on the night of May 23, particles from a comet called LINEAR would bring many meteors to the night sky. North America had the best seats for the event.
And so a lot of people watched and waited. But no one saw much.
Meteor showers are common, and the best produce about a hundred meteors per hour. But meteor storms, which can send out thousands of meteors per hour, are rare and notoriously unreliable.
Not only can predicted storms go bust, but great storms can erupt without warning. In November 1966, the normally weak Leonids surprised everyone and roared back to life, producing more than 100,000 shooting stars in a single hour.
You can still count on astronomers to tell you exactly when the next eclipse will be. But if they ever promise you a meteor storm, you should take it with a grain of, well, meteor dust.
—written by Ken Croswell, voiced by Steve Mirsky
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
