• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

Rocket Man is Back

Warren Faidley

Warren Faidley

Supporter
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
2,836
Location
Mos Isley Space Port
Someone told me that our favorite "life-saving" scientist is back on track to start shooting toy rockets from the TIV. In an effort to be fair, I thought I'd ask some of the scientists on ST if this "critical" research is genuine or just a gimmick to legitimize the pursuit? I have never seen a peer-reviewed paper published in a major publication from the last go-around. I know Accu-Wx's name is involved, so I'm assuming it's genuine or they would not be tempting the same fate as TWC for reckless liability involving a bogus pursuit that would be easily attacked by lawyers.
 
Most of the footage I’ve seen lead me to believe there is a lot of trial and error involved in deploying those devices. It looks like a lion’s share of them blow about 1/4 or maybe 1/2 mile before they crash land in a field. It seems like the low level winds are impossible to penetrate much at all in the vertical. I’d venture a guess that if they had multiple successful test cases with data included we would have heard more by now. But I’m no scientist, I’m just an average Joe on the outside looking in and I think they have a ways to go.
 
I was thinking the same thing, maybe igniting a fire, which would be a big problem legally, especially if the fire injured someone or damaged property. I've also noticed a reluctance for scientists to chastise each other, even if a project is bogus. Not being a scientist, maybe that's protocol or maybe its because most meteorology scientists originate from OU?
 
My gut says it is a publicity stunt, but science is full of discovery's by people bucking the conventional wisdom of the day and trying crazy things. I think the theory behind using rockets is that you can aim and shoot them into a tornado that you can't access via road and where balloons are unlikely to survive to make it to the target. Will it work and produce worth while science? Probably not - but if you don't try, you don't really know.
 
The fact we 're all talking about this (it's been made public purposely) would suggest more of a gimmick than legit research, IMO. But I'm always going to scoff at anyone who has to make every aspect of their life public. The real stuff usually happens without a camera guy there for every moment.
 
What would happen if someone used a real proper guided missile for this prospect? Say I hopped out of my KIA Sorento with a shoulder launched TOW missile, could that be guided into a tornado?

(More curiosity than sarcasm, but not by much.)
 
Won't name names or entities but after being previously involved in early stages of a weather instrumentation project in an engineering capacity, and talking with a member of one of the key groups doing legit science out there, it would seem that throwing or launching objects into tornadoes and mesocyclones is not high on the list of valuable data gathering. The risk vs. reward doesn't add up, but that is where the adrenaline and glamor seem to be.

Multi-point observations in near proximity by various visual and sensor means is of interest to legit science, however, and you'll note a few groups out there are concentrating on that and doing it reasonably safely and professionally. Not saying a probe or rocket can not get some valuable data, but in my experience the vast majority of people doing 'science' lack the background or temperament to be doing it and are skipping most of the steps to validate instrument fidelity, safety, etc. I'm not here to judge individuals, but would like to see people who say they are passionate about science stop acting like they are in Twister or trying to copy Tim Samaras or getting caught up in personality or media hype. Science has never been about any of that stuff and it is disciplined and open to change for a reason.
 
I believe it to be a stunt. Other scientists who I know to be legitimate are all using UAVs or balloons.

It's good the guy has found his "niche" in this world as a celebrity scientist (kinda like, say, Al Roker, but I don't want to throw others whom I do not know under the bus with RT), but I certainly hope he does not represent himself as a legitimate researcher or someone who is doing anything but serving the public for entertainment purposes. I have little to no regard for his scientific output, especially since I have yet to see a publication with his name on it in a respectable journal since he finished his PhD. Granted, it is possible he has published in an obscure journal (or in a predatory one), but I have not seen it, and I'm sure he would emphasize any articles he did get published.
 
Last edited:
rdale said:
If having a PhD in Meteorology doesn't qualify someone as a "scientist" then you have a strangely high bar :)
Click to expand...
I think the catch here is claiming science but not providing scientific results. But it is what it is....cant say the guy isnt entertaining and found his nitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top