Kenneth wrote:

> But the one thing I adamantly refused to do was to show the strings
> holding up the meteors ;-)

such a scene would likely be shot with the camera pointing vertically up
through a glass plate and then dropping a bucket of cardboard rocks ;)

> It's just a completely fanciful scene. That's why I wasn't even sure what to
> call those rocks. Not asteroids, not really meteors

certainly not meteors, but you probably meant meteroids :-P

http://www.freemars.org/jeff/meteor/

> But why would they all be *rotating* and at different rates?

That I find believable, space stuff rotates. In case of a break-up
the angular momentum of the parent body has to be preserved, but the
rotation of each individual piece is very much a result of its mass,
shape, original position, and random collision history.

Post a reply to this message