• 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

rdale said:
Shooting "a" rocket into a tornado is not "draining energy" from real projects like TORUS. Maybe if he proposed an actual science-based project, he could get funds that go to science-based projects?
Click to expand...
I believe Warren was being facetious.
 
I think there's some promising data he's already posted -- 180mph velocity at about 1.5km; similar to the 170mph EF-4 rating Topeka has given the tornado. That's direct data from within the storm, not a remote radar-scan finding. Now with the probe being retrieved, a map can tell where that reading was. It may prove to be the closest thing we can get to an 'anemometer in a tornado'. With more data (inclusive with other teams), I wonder if a formula as a function of height and measurement could eventually be produced to extrapolate the near-surface rotational velocities (or if it already exists, to sharpen its objectivity/increase the confidence in use), giving a better guide to storm-assessment teams. And rocket-parachute systems are much lighter (and less expensive I bet) than DOWs, needless to say. Probably more dangerous though (proximity to storm).
 
As skeptical as I am about this, I want to give credit where credit is due. The data actually looks legit and might actually be useful, so credit to Reed and his team for actually doing some science. I still think a lot of this was for publicity, but at least he actually collected some data.
 
Over the years I've kind of looked at it with a very skeptical eye, but I'm starting to think he may be moving more toward a science based approach and give it a little more credence now, at least based on effort. The reason being, what does he have left to conquer other than the science? He already has a massive following, already had a TV show and (I think) makes a pretty nice living chasing. I'm sure there's plenty of showmanship left, but at this point in his career it would make sense to bring science back into the fold and try to contribute, albeit in his own unique way. Time will tell whether he ends up making a real contribution to science or not, but for now I think he's putting some legit effort into it.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely agree that some credit is due. I am willing to dial back skepticism with effort and professionalism. There does seem to be a trend that way.
 
John Farley said:
As I understand it, the rocket was found at the KCI airport. There was also a lot of other debris that landed there, so much that the airport had to be closed for cleanup. Some of the debris was from the nursery that was hit, 47 miles from the airport. This would suggest, at least, that the rocket travelled in a similar trajectory to a lot of the other tornado debris. I would think that if the trajectory was successfully measured and data on pressure, wind, etc. was also obtained (both big "ifs") this could be of some scientific value. I do hope he shares the data with scientists, including perhaps the TORUS team.
Click to expand...

IIRC they said it was found 5 mile north of Linwood. The fact that it was found at all is amazing.
 
Hopefully the research instruments do not require rare earths. PRC follow-up to Warren's DPRK joke.

Anyway it's a miracle they found it. I mean we rarely recover regular weather balloons. What a lucky find!

We actually met Reed Timmer for the first time in person on that high risk day. Then they succeed near my hometown a few days later. Interesting. He is a great guy. Took pictures with local residents and their kids. Very kind.
 
Last edited:
I remain skeptical that anything more than a short-form intro paper in a journal like EJSSM or a brief and cursory talk at the next SLS/AMS/NWA conference will ever come from this data. He didn't obtain much of anything that couldn't be derived from NWP simulations or hasn't been recovered from debris trajectory studies from past events like 27 April 2011 (Knox et al. 2013, BAMS). See also Magsig and Snow (1998). The best this does is add one data point to these prior works.
 
Glancing over it, his data looks believable except the min temperature. Perhaps it iced over or otherwise failed. Anyone notice the secondary horizontal wind max on either side of the peak? Almost looks like the concentric wind profile of an outer eyewall in a mature cane in the early stages of EWRC.... perhaps it was an artifact of the parachute probe's unguided trajectory but that is interesting...
 
Last edited:
It all seems interesting, but as some have echoed, nothing earth-shattering with the data so far... I think he means well, but it does feel like this is more about publicity than anything.

If this does go on to something bigger than a conference talk or peer-reviewed blurb, then I'll stand corrected.
 
He mentioned that the probe is also parachute lofted once it's fired and deployed off the rocket. I gave Reed one of my retired pilot chutes from my skydiving rig at ChaserCon … Humm - I wanted to see it put to good use (and wind up deep inside a supercell) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top