Meteorites are not hot when they reach the ground.
And i betcha* there aren’t. If there were a significant number of significant pieces, some of them would have been found by now.
*Disclaimer the word “betcha” in no way implies a formal bet or written consent from Major League Baseball.
If you guys want Siberian meteorites, you need to get some of the
that fell near Vladivostok in 1947. Some 23 tonnes of iron meteorite was recovered from that one.
How do you get a yield that skimpy, even just applying the rule of thumb that the blast radius scales as the cube root of the energy?
We don’t need to know the exact number since the actual effects are known: trees leveled in a 30-mile diameter, windows broken and people tossed about 40 miles away, plus thermal effects, etc.
Wikipedia gives estimates between 3 MT and 30 MT.
Some newbie lurker out there should choose Tom Disregard for their handle…
I can’t tell whether your serious (in which case I’m whooshed) or whether I’ve just scored the incredibly rare double-whoosher / whooshee whoosh.
Back of the napkin math, just based on what was in the article. I hadn’t gotten further than that yet . . .
By Chunks* I mean everything from the size of a needle’s size sliver to that of a Volkswagen Beetle (given the size of the meteor); with something homogeneous, it’s usually somewhat predictable (on a bell curve) what sizes will be generated, and how they’ll map out in a fallout pattern. That’s how we were able to determine some mathematical guidelines on how far is a “relatively” safe frag distance to be from the shot. With a non-homogeneous body, though, all them predictions go out the window. I still betcha there’s slivers littered around the landscape that are too small to see/care about/collect, and some stone or boulder size chunks that got buried into the landscape. The 19 years from the blast to the first scientific expeditions’ a long time for things to weather over. For example, trying to do an IED post-blast analysis after two weeks’ rain and snow in a muddy environment? Feh. . .
(*) Note: Chunks is a non-SI term for fragmentary pieces, and in no way is endorsed by the NIST, NHL, or the Goonies.
My apologies for being vague on some of the descriptions; I’m running three computer screens and a cellphone as I work from home–this is the “recreational” screen.
Tripler
Admittedly, I’m not putting all my scientific/engineering chops into this thread.
We did a pretty good job simulating that 2000 lbs at a time over Tokyo and Dresden. The magnitude of the destruction isn’t without precedent, just the rapidity.
I remember reading a Science Fiction story many years ago, the USA had one general in command of firing our nuclear arsenal (upon orders from the President) and Washington DC was suddenly and completely destroyed. The general refused to fire his missiles (something didn’t seem right) and it was later found that a meteor has destroyed the city.
Which does make me wonder what would happen if a major US (or Chinese or Russian) city just happened to be where a chunk of rock decided to fall…
There may well be no remains of the impactor. There is the theory that what came in was a small comet, which being mostly dirty ice, would have left little to no remains.
Unfortunately, I’m serious. I’m down to one hearing aid, and one of these days, even that won’t help.
~VOW
Of course there are still “chunks” if you are counting exteremly small pieces–almost all of it in fact. I meant “chunks” in the context of this conversation to be pieces big enough to still be moving fast enough to cause harm after travelling through several miles of air.
Either way, you seem to have the impression that asteroids are either large lumps of metal or large lumps of rock, when in fact they are very often large lumps of dried mud. Loosely consolidated dust-sized particles mixed with a fraction of millimeter-sized particles. For example, Tagish Lake–the few surviving chunks that were recovered were only recovered because they were recovered very quickly. On first exposure to liquid water, what wasn’t found will have quickly melted into a grainy slurry. Or Sartov, which is lass soluable but very friable–I have a sample of that one that is just a small bottle containing grey dust and a number of loose chondrules. Your personal experience is biasing your view because insurgents rarely make their IEDs out of dried mud.
Sort of. China: DF-5 (3 MT) to today’s DF-31 (either 1 MT or a couple of ~200 kT warheads).
Russia: R36M (SS-18) Mod 1 (18-25 MT or ‘a lot’) to today’s RS-24 (3-5, 200 kT-ish MIRV, although I’d bet now they’re MaRVs) and RT-2PM2 Topol-M (1 MT)
Big 1960s-era strategic nuke is right.
IR Early Warning satellites will see the reentry trail over the doomed city. That, and no launch signature beforehand, might clue in the commanding general.
Even though a bolide may be coming in with the same kinetic energy as the initial thermal energy from a nuclear explosion, the fireball doesn’t behave the same way, right? There’s no double-flash from a bolide?
I recall reading a short story by R.A. Lafferty that involved a consensus realignment of the language caused by the destruction of the city of Chicago in the distant past (f’rinstance, nobody used the word “loop” any more, usually substituting “bend.” And the Encyclopedia Britannica articles for “Chiana River” and “Chichimec” had been expanded beyond any plausibly relevant length to take up the space that had previously been the entry for “Chicago”). The idea was to remove the existence of Chicago from the cultural memory, so as to avoid triggering post-traumatic stress responses in the majority of the population.
Of course, when the researchers who discovered the cover-up and its reason learned the word “Chicago,” they burst into peals of laughter at the idea of a city having such a ridiculous name.
Reminds me of this Sherlock Holmes story I read once.
Professor Moriarty predicted the impact long before it happened, and arranged for a series of events before his death to lure Holmes and Watson there at that time as a postmortem revenge plot. However, he couldn’t resist taunting Holmes with knowledge of his impending doom by leaving behind his calculations. Holmes sees the implications and manages to get him and Watson barely sufficient distance and shelter before the impact.
I just read a book called Tambora about a volcanic eruption in 1815 that left enough debris and SO2 in the atmosphere to lead to world-wide famine for three years. Could the Tunguska explosion have been bigger than this?
No. Not even close. Tambora released the energy equivalent of about 30 gigatons of TNT. Tunguska, at the outside, had about 30 megatons of energy.
The famous painting “The Scream” might have been based on the eruption of Krakatoa.