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

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe