Mystery Fireball a Concorde Contrail?

unassimilatible writes "Space.com is reporting that an unidentified fireball seen over Wales was not a meteor, as originally claimed by NASA. What was it, and does this throw into question NASA's credibility? The truth is out there..." A follow-up to this story.

Comments

I don't get it

[(trb001)]

How does this dispel NASA's credibility? Upon initial inspection, a hypothesis is made. Upon further inspection, a different hypothesis is reached because of data being added to the situation (Concorde flight paths). Were someone to come forward and produce a very large blowtorch, yet another hypothesis could be reached.

What we have here is a lack of data, not lack of credibility. If anything, this should teach us to question the first, second and Nth hypothesis until it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

--trb

Re:I don't get it

[br0ck]

Especially since the explanation underneath the original picture was quickly updated to include the airplane hypothesis.

NASA was on this

[GeoGreg]

I had noticed that NASA had already revised their interpretation within a day or 2 of the original report. If you look here, you will see that they reinterpreted it as a contrail reflecting the sun.

Re:Professor Arturo

[mniskin]

True, true. Nothing near the credibility that the Sci-Fi channel has these days, professor Arturo especially.

Concorde? Seriously?

[waldoj]

"Steve Salter, an aircraft engineer in the UK, suggested the contrail might have come from the Concorde, whose flight timing would have put it in the vicinity at the right time. Others deduced the same.

'I think the most likely explanation is that this is an unusual view of the Concorde's contrail,' the APOD's Bonnell told SPACE.com late last week."

Mind you, what's being discussed is this photo and this photo, each of which show -- fairly plainly -- huge flaming explosions leaving a trail of smoke behind them.

Now, let there be no doubt that NASA is collectively a hell of a lot smarter than me. But, seriously, you're telling me that a tiny little plane like the Concorde is releasing a huge, explosion-shaped contrail behind it?

Well, it's no wonder they decommissioned the damned things.

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Concorde? Seriously?

[squiggleslash]

Not exactly. The contrail - made up of tiny ice particles - would be acting as a reflector for the (quite plainly setting given the lighting of the photograph) Sun. Pretty cool effect when you think of it.

Looks hot, is actually freezing :)

Re:Concorde? Seriously?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Really? Look at a contrail some time after the aircraft goes by. It is quite diffuse.

There could have been localized winds, stirring up that part faster then the rest of it.
Leading to a wider appearing cloud of ice particles.
Which then reflect the setting sun.

Re:Concorde? Seriously?

[Red Rocket]

I have seen diffuse contrails and they're pretty thin on vapor once they spread out. There is a much greater quantity of material in the cloud at the end of the trail than would be explained by diffusion. That's a pretty thick cloud of material. It's visibly not diffuse, and the fact that it reflects so much more sunlight (if you accept the reflection theory) than the rest of the trail is further proof that diffusion isn't the answer. The segment that is more diffuse should reflect less light per unit of area than the less diffuse segment.