Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Determining the population of Large Meteoroids in Major Meteor Showers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.05788 v1 pith:ZZXB5DMJ submitted 2024-05-09 astro-ph.EP

classification astro-ph.EP
keywords meteoroidsaquariidsleonidsperseidsshowersmassesejectionlargest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We have estimated the largest meteoroids present in major meteor showers from observations conducted between 2019-2022 by the Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) instrument on the GOES-R satellites. Our integrated time area products for the Leonids, Perseids and eta Aquariids are of order 5 x 10^10 km2 hours. We compute photometric masses for shower fireballs using the approach of Vojacek et al. 2022 to correct from narrow-band GLM luminosity to bolometric luminosity and apply the luminous efficiency relation of Ceplecha and McCrosky 1976 at high speeds. Between 2019 and 2022, the showers definitely observed by GLM were the Leonids, Perseids, and eta Aquariids, with probable detections of the Orionids and Taurids. We find the largest meteoroids to be of order 7 kg for the Leonids, 3 kg for the Perseids, and 3 kg for the eta Aquariids, corresponding to meteoroids of ~ 0.2m diameter. The Orionids and Taurids had maximum meteoroid masses of 4 kg and 150 kg respectively. The Leonids and eta Aquariids are well fit by a single power-law with differential mass exponent, s, of 2.08 +/- 0.08 and 2.00 +/- 0.09 over the mass range 10^-7 < m < 1 kg. All showers had maximum meteoroid masses compatible with Whipple gas-drag ejection, with the exception of the Perseids which have much larger meteoroids than expected which is also consistent with observations from ground based instruments. This may reflect preferential ejection in narrow jets or possibly some form of mantle erosion/release in the past for the parent comet, 109P/Swift-Tuttle.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools