
Norwegian skydiver nearly struck by meteorite - oyvind
http://www.nrk.no/viten/here-a-meteorite-zooms-past-1.11646757
======
binarymax
I did some quick googling and found this interesting research from Oberlin,
with a history of meteorite injuries and deaths:

    
    
         1420 BC  Israel - Fatal meteorite impact.
         588 AD China - 10 deaths; siege towers destroyed.
         1321-68 China - People & animals killed; homes ruined.
         1369  Ho-t'ao China - Soldier injured; fire.
         02/03/1490 Shansi, China - 10,000 deaths.
         09/14/1511 Cremona, Italy - Monk, birds, & sheep killed.
         1633-64 Milono, Italy - Monk killed.
         1639 China - Tens of deaths; 10 homes destroyed.
         1647-54 Indian Ocean - 2 sailors killed aboard a ship.
         07/24/1790 France - Farmer killed; home destroyed; cattle killed.
         01/16/1825 Oriang, India - Man killed; woman injured.
         02/27/1827 Mhow, India - Man injured.
         12/11/1836 Macao, Brazil - Oxen killed; homes damaged.
         07/14/1847 Braunau, Bohemia - Home struck by 371 lb meteorite.
         01/23/1870 Nedagolla, India - Man stunned by meteorite.
         06/30/1874 Ming Tung li, China - Cottage crushed, child killed.
         01/14/1879 Newtown, Indiana, USA - Man killed in bed.
         01/31/1879 Dun-Lepoelier, France - Farmer killed by meteorite.
         11/19/1881 Grossliebenthal, Russia - Man injured.
         03/11/1897 West Virginia, USA - Walls pierced, horse killed, man injured.
         09/05/1907 Weng-li, China - Whole family crushed to death.
         06/30/1908 Tunguska, Siberia - Fire, 2 people killed. (referenced throughout paper)
         04/28/1927 Aba, Japan - Girl injured by meteorite.
         12/08/1929 Zvezvan, Yugoslavia - Meteorite hit bridal party, 1 killed.
         05/16/1946 Santa Ana, Mexico - Houses destroyed, 28 injured.
         11/30/1946 Colford, UK - Telephones knocked out, boy injured.
         11/28/1954 Sylacauga, Alabama, USA - 4 kg meteorite struck home, lady injured.
         08/14/1992 Mbole, Uganda - 48 stones fell, roofs damaged, boy injured. 
    

[http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/bsimonso/group9.htm](http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/bsimonso/group9.htm)

~~~
rz2k
The data are interesting on their own if you start with the idea that meteor
strikes are random across centuries, but the information collection and
preservation isn't. For instance, with two data points you might claim there
were more monks than princes in Renaissance Italy, but they were both
surrounded by literate people who kept records compared to the even more
numerous peasants. However, I suppose interpreting small datasets so that they
fit preconceived notions isn't very productive.

It does seem strange that there are ten 19th century events and eight in the
20th century. Not so much because the numbers are different, but because there
was twice the population, and literacy and communication were so vastly
improved.

~~~
stretchwithme
More people are working indoors in tall buildings and traveling in cars. So
they are more concentrated where they live and travel. And each sighting is
counted only once, regardless of how many people saw it.

~~~
rz2k
Relative to the entire population, humanity is more urbanized, but that seems
irrelevant to me compared to how many single square miles on the earth's
surface contain a human who is connected to the global community.

While the decreasing number of people needed to farm a square mile seems like
it would matter enough to decrease the newsworthiness of meteor strikes in
some agricultural regions, it still seems likely that there has been a net
increase in total area that includes the lower bound of population density
where a meteor strike would be sufficiently newsworthy to make this list.

Take Las Vegas over the past 50 years as an example. It's a prime example of
people being increasingly insulated from the outdoors, yet the footprint and
total area of settled land has grown dramatically. It hardly matters whether
you're inside or not, if a meteor strikes your block.

Edit: I was curious about the data and found this Google Earth file[1]. It
looks like there definitely are many more recorded events, and it's just that
the bar for being newsworthy has risen. However, what's strange is the
preponderance of events in NW Texas and north of there. If records were
population-based, then it should look like population density maps. I can't
figure out off hand what causes the density of events, other than flat land
and maybe tornado observation equipment, but that would seem to apply to other
areas as well.

[1][https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec-
places/59...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/gec-
places/59UqlWKj9Gg\[1-25-false\])

------
dredmorbius
A related question: what's the probability of an aircraft being struck by a
meteor. Seems this question was asked in the wake of the Air France flight 447
disappearance (since resolved as pitot tube freezing combined with pilot error
and control feedback failures of the Airbus design).

But still, the odds of a strike on _an_ aircraft over the next 20 years are
about 4%:

[http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2009/06/how-much-of-a-
th...](http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2009/06/how-much-of-a-threat-are-
meteors-to-aviation.html)

 _at any given time, airliners cover 2 billionths of the Earth 's surface.
There are 125 meteors an hour, each with probability 2x10-9 of striking some
airplane. In 20 years, that's about 22 million independent possible impact
events. The chance that every one of those meteors misses every airplane is:
ppois(0,2e-9_22e6)*

(Using R).

So the odds of an asteroid flying past a skydiver aren't as infinitesimal as
one might otherwise think.

It also makes one wonder at the possibility of space-junk collisions being the
cause of past aviation accidents. There's little enough evidence this would
leave, particularly for a flight which disappeared entirely without a trace,
or whose wreckage was only found much later.

~~~
bitL
That would be under an assumption that the distribution of planes around the
globe is even. Given most jetliners are flying in corridors, I would say the
actual probability is much much lower. The same can be probably said about
meteorites - I guess their geographic distribution is uneven as well.

~~~
dredmorbius
As others have said: the distribution of the planes over the Earth (and their
speed -- one Yahoo site I ran across suggested they're harder to hit because
they're moving fast -- that's also irrelevant, not to mention that pretty much
everything on Earth is moving at about 20km/s relative to an asteroid) doesn't
matter.

Because meteorites aren't aimed. Odds are they'll land pretty much anywhere on
the planet.

I'm not _entirely_ sure this is the case -- because the Earth orbits the Sun,
the eastward-facing side should be sweeping through more debris than the west,
which means that if you could concentrate your flights on that side, you'd be
at higher risk. As it is, most flights tend to operate during daylight hours,
with the before-noon flights being at greater risk. More reasons to catch the
afternoon flight if you prefer to play things safe, or the morning flight if
you feel like making history (or low-grade mysteries of the unknown TV
programmes).

~~~
FatalLogic
>one Yahoo site I ran across suggested they're harder to hit because they're
moving fast -- that's also irrelevant,

Indeed, it's not as if they're trying to dodge.

However, doesn't a faster plane actually have a _higher_ probability of
intersecting the same space as a falling rock?

Comparable to:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4562132.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4562132.stm)
('...So running fast actually makes us wetter according to this analysis')

~~~
roc
Running makes you wetter than walking _over an equivalent time period_. The
main goal of running in the rain is to get to a shelter -- to minimize that
time.

Something your link covers, and points out. [1]

So it would be with a plane: Flying faster means less time in the air, where
meteorite strikes are particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while
taxiing, or sitting idle). So while a faster-flying plane is more likely to
encounter a meteorite than a slower-flying plane, if flying faster means less
time in the air it's going to be "safer" overall.

[1] "So here we have it - more mathematical advice to avoid getting wet.
Because we divide by VP in this equation, maximising our velocity now emerges
as a good idea, assuming there is a shelter available."

EDIT: grammar

~~~
FatalLogic
>Flying faster means less time in the air, where meteorite strikes are
particularly dangerous (as opposed to strikes while taxiing, or sitting idle).

That's a very good point: for a plane, reaching the ground is the equivalent
of a runner reaching shelter from the rain.

But I suppose planes generally spend about the same amount of time in the air,
no matter how fast they go. The faster plane just travels further in that
time. There's no obvious reason a fast plane would spend more time safely on
the ground than a slow plane.

Perhaps flying faster is safer for individual passengers, but more dangerous
for the plane?

~~~
dredmorbius
_reaching the ground is the equivalent of a runner reaching shelter from the
rain._

A meteorite capable of striking a plane in flight is just as equivalent of
striking it on the ground. It's already passed through the ablative portion of
its entry, and is falling at terminal velocity. So the probabilities of a
strike don't actually change.

The implications for the aircraft, passengers, and crew, are rather different,
however, when the plane is at-rest and on the ground.

~~~
FatalLogic
>The implications for the aircraft, passengers, and crew, are rather
different, however, when the plane is at-rest and on the ground.

Yes, that's so. A 300km/h 5kg rock striking any part of a plane in flight must
have a very high probability of proving fatal for all aboard. On the ground
the risk of injury for each passenger must be much lower - the plane might
even be empty.

However, while the plane is in the air, _it seems that a faster plane moves
through a greater volume of space per unit of time, compared to a slower
plane, therefore it is at greater risk of passing through the space occupied
by a meteorite in any particular hour_. So, assuming that faster planes spend
about the amount of time airborne as slower planes, the risk of an accident is
higher for faster aircraft.

The risk for an individual passenger is not increased in the same way (I guess
it is not much affected by aircraft speed), because the faster aircraft gets
them to their destination in less time, so they spend less time vulnerable to
meteorite impacts on the aircraft.

------
amirmc
You can skip to the photo collage to get a better look at it.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jfE...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jfEdEIwhj6s#t=153)

------
dclowd9901
I'm... skeptical. If you look at the frames of the meteorite falling, it looks
like each frame has the fragment at about 3 feet from its last position. If
that's a 60fps camera (I think it is?), that's 180 f/s speed or 122mph. That
seems really slow for a rock flying into the atmosphere from space, and far
slower than a rock would have to be going for it to "cut him in half."

My guess: a rock that fell off the undercarriage panel of an airliner, and was
carried by strong winds. Or a particularly slow meteorite.

~~~
lutusp
> If that's a 60fps camera (I think it is?) ...

The camera appears to be recording at a rate of about 10 frames per second.
This is a way to reduce memory consumption in a portable device in which
recording duration has a higher priority than recording frame rate.

AT 10 FPS, the rock's sequential positions seem consistent with a falling
rock.

And, lo and behold:

[http://gopro.com/cameras/hd-hero3-silver-
edition](http://gopro.com/cameras/hd-hero3-silver-edition)

Quote: "Features video resolutions up to 1080p60, 10MP photos _up to 10 frames
per second_ , enhanced low-light performance and built-in Wi-Fi. Waterproof to
131’/40m."

According to the above, ten frames per second is the highest available frame
rate.

> Or a particularly slow meteorite.

Not a meteorite until it gets to the ground.

~~~
dclowd9901
So _even slower_. At 20 mph, it could've simply come out of his parachute.

~~~
lutusp
> So even slower. At 20 mph, it could've simply come out of his parachute.

It seems you're missing the point that the rock passed him by at a fairly high
horizontal speed, while descending past him. That's not consistent with the
rock coming out of his canopy.

------
FatalLogic
This site has more information. It's in Norwegian, but there are some charts
and graphics which give an idea how they've been trying to locate the rock by
analyzing the video and checking wind speed records.

[http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1329](http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1329)

They estimate the speed of the falling rock at 280km/h (vertical) and the
speed of the guy in the wingsuit at 148km/h (at 37 degr). It seems like
they're still uncertain about the exact speed, though. The wind speed was
about 5m/s.

One document in the video suggests the altitude that the rock passed him was
1200m... so the rock would have hit the ground 15 seconds later at 280km/h

The research website mentioned in the article is linked on that page, but it
isn't up yet.

------
woodchuck64
Shouldn't we be expecting a rock that has just been heated to plasma stage by
atmospheric friction only seconds earlier to be glowing, steaming or leaving
little molten fragments of itself behind?

Update: maybe not. The last stage of flight is "dark and cold" according to
this: [http://www.meteorite-
recon.com/en/Meteorite_fusion_crust_1.h...](http://www.meteorite-
recon.com/en/Meteorite_fusion_crust_1.htm)

~~~
goodcanadian
As I understand it, the rock doesn't get especially hot. The hot surface
ablates, and the rock underneath remains relatively cool (doesn't have time to
heat up).

From
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry#Blunt_body_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry#Blunt_body_entry_vehicles)
(admittedly about spacecraft rather than meteorites):

"Through making the reentry vehicle blunt, air cannot 'get out of the way'
quickly enough, and acts as an air cushion to push the shock wave and heated
shock layer forward (away from the vehicle). Since most of the hot gases are
no longer in direct contact with the vehicle, the heat energy would stay in
the shocked gas and simply move around the vehicle to later dissipate into the
atmosphere."

------
ForHackernews
They keep talking about how lucky he is it missed him, but I almost think the
opposite is true: He'd have to have been staggeringly _un_ lucky to have been
hit by it.

~~~
FatalLogic
In fact, he was doubly lucky. Firstly, he was incredibly lucky to have
witnessed a meteorite passing a few meters from him. Secondly, he was very
lucky not to be killed by the meteorite that was passing a few meters from
him.

~~~
gandalfu
Triple lucky for capturing those events in video!

------
jon_black
Is it me or does it look like the "meteorite" is moving quite slow. Shouldn't
it be moving so fast that you'd need a high speed camera to see it in that
detail?

Also...his parachute is always above him, maybe it fell out of that.

~~~
simias
Yeah, Occam's razor tells me that it's much more likely that a stone got stuck
somewhere in their skydiving apparatus than having a meteorite fly right past
you while you're skydiving.

Maybe I'm underestimating the quantity of meteorites falling on the earth but
since the newspapers aren't exactly filled with news of people getting killed
by falling rocks I'm not yet ready to believe that was a meteorite.

~~~
jessedhillon
If you look at how a parachute is packed, and how it unfolds when deployed,
what you described is definitely not the simpler explanation preferred by
Occam's razor.

~~~
simias
Well, since it seems I'm in a minority here I'll accept that I might be
misjudging the odds on this one, especially since I know nothing about
skydiving.

I guess it goes to prove that since nowadays we're almost all carrying video
recorders with us at all times the probability of catching the most elusive
events on video gets increasingly large. I expect to see a video of someone
standing at the foot of a rainbow any day now.

~~~
cratermoon
It could have fallen from or (if they are being stupid) been thrown by the
other guy, who happens to appear in the frame just after the object.

------
tummybug
Seems strange that the other diver is following the same path as the meteorite
and passes by just a few seconds later. Could he have dropped it and it
accelerated to a speed faster than he was travelling?

~~~
peterwwillis
Possibly. A small rock would have a lot less air resistance than a person, and
those suits are designed to increase air resistance. So it might end up with a
higher terminal velocity and fall slightly faster.

[http://www.wired.com/2013/10/do-heavier-objects-really-
fall-...](http://www.wired.com/2013/10/do-heavier-objects-really-fall-faster/)
[http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.cfm](http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.cfm)

~~~
lutusp
> A small rock would have a lot less air resistance than a person, and those
> suits are designed to increase air resistance. So it might end up with a
> higher terminal velocity and fall slightly faster.

This is a bit more complicated than it appears at first glance. Other things
being equal, a 3D object's mass increases as the cube of a single dimension's
increase, but its surface area increases only as the square. Therefore a
smaller object's atmospheric terminal velocity can be expected to less than
that for a large one. This is why many kinds of small animals can fall great
distances through the atmosphere and land unharmed.

(Until objects approach terminal velocity, they all fall with the same
profile. Only when approaching terminal velocity do their speeds change.)

On the other hand, a typical rock (non-metallic) has 3.5 times the density of
a human, so that argues in favor of a greater terminal velocity.

A full analysis would need to take into account the human's flight suit, which
turns vertical kinetic energy into horizontal kinetic energy, and the rock's
size, shape and composition.

But without any of this and _a priori_ , the idea of a rock flying past a
human, as in the video, is perfectly reasonable.

One more thing. The picture of the rock passing by the human is actually most
likely a person flying horizontally past a rock that's dropping vertically.

------
aDevilInMe
JFYI To be hit by a meteorite you would either need to be close to the Earth's
surface or for somebody strong to throw it. Technically it is not a meteorite
until it impacts with the Earth's surface, therefore this object may actually
be a meteoroid.

~~~
lutusp
> Technically it is not a meteorite until it impacts with the Earth's surface,
> therefore this object may actually be a meteoroid.

Not quite. Before entering Earth's atmosphere, it's a meteoroid. While passing
through the atmosphere, it's a meteor. After landing, it's a meteorite.

[http://www.livescience.com/27183-asteroid-meteorite-
meteor-m...](http://www.livescience.com/27183-asteroid-meteorite-meteor-
meteoroid.html)

~~~
aDevilInMe
Meteor is a description of the burning in the atmosphere not the object
itself, which is still a meteoroid.

~~~
lutusp
> Meteor is a description of the burning in the atmosphere not the object
> itself ...

Yes, fair enough. Unless the object is consumed in the process of generating
the visible presentation (often true), which makes it a meteor -- or perhaps I
should say "turns it into a meteor".

------
nly
I don't know why everyone is assuming it was so close. It looked further away
from the dude to me... i'd guess ~100 feet or more.

In any case, given camera optics, you can only solve for size or distance
given the other.

------
hdevalence
I wonder if it's possible to use computer vision techniques on the video
footage to calculate the position and altitude of the skydiver at the time,
and then also estimate the trajectory of the rock?

~~~
chillax
Some analysis going on here at least (text in norwegian though):
[http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1329](http://norskmeteornettverk.no/wordpress/?p=1329)

------
CalRobert
Go to 2:12 if you want to skip the fluff.

~~~
sgt
The fluff is actually worth watching as well. The guy is clearly taken back by
this experience.

------
BigTuna
It's extremely hard to discern but it looks like there was possibly another
smaller piece that goes flying by just before the camera stabilizes and the
main meteor comes into view.

~~~
jccooper
That would make sense; it's clearly a fragment from a larger object that broke
up during entry, probably late in the heating phase. (There is a visible dark
"outside" and light "inside" on the piece we see.) So there are likely to be
other pieces nearby.

------
3327
He almost got taken out by 1/100bn odds.

~~~
netcan
We all do.

------
olt
Could it be Blue Ice[0] or a similar leakage from an airplane flying above the
skydivers?

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_(precipitation)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_ice_\(precipitation\))

------
uptown
Could it have fallen from some other plane, they weren't aware of, that was
above their altitude or do the principles of terminal velocity and gravity not
support that hypothesis?

~~~
Torgo
I accidentally downvoted you, sorry :-(

~~~
uptown
No problem ... it happens.

~~~
deciplex
I've neutralized the errant downvote.

------
d_theorist
Isn't it more likely that the rock fell out of their plane?

~~~
dredmorbius
He addresses that in the video: other jumpers and the plane are not above him
at this point, so odds are the rock came from elsewhere.

The presumes a reliable narrator, but it seems plausible. This is one guy with
an in-flight asteroid sighting. Not as if they're crawling out of the
woodwork. And the experts called in seem to find this credible. Though people
hamming up an act for cameras is also not unheard of.

------
lotsofcows
April Fool?

~~~
lotsofcows
Presumably the downvote means, "No, but I'm not going to tell you why"?

Any Nordic types following this story?

~~~
dang
Comments that are (a) really short and (b) not obviously substantive almost
always get downvoted. If instead you had written: "Could this be an April
Fool?", people would have probably have recognized it as a sincere question.

Please don't add comments about getting downvoted, though. As the guidelines
say, it makes for boring reading.

