Apparently, size DOESN'T Matter. For Meteors!

[Tuckerfan]

Tunguska object smaller than previously believed.

The stunning amount of forest devastation at Tunguska a century ago in Siberia may have been caused by an asteroid only a fraction as large as previously published estimates, Sandia National Laboratories supercomputer simulations suggest.

“The asteroid that caused the extensive damage was much smaller than we had thought,” says Sandia principal investigator Mark Boslough of the impact that occurred June 30, 1908. “That such a small object can do this kind of destruction suggests that smaller asteroids are something to consider. Their smaller size indicates such collisions are not as improbable as we had believed.”

Somebody’d better alert Bruce Willis that he’s got a lot more work to do!

[Mangetout]

It was actually quite a big one - it just wore vertical stripes that just made it look smaller.

[sturmhauke]

Maybe aliens were test firing a mass driver and we were a convenient target.

[squeegee]

What a frustrating article – they don’t say how big they used to think the Tunguska impactor was, vs how big they think it is now. its all about how they now have super-fly 'puters that model the energy transfer from the blast better. I’m admittedly on my first cuppa Joe – am I missing something?

[Boyo_Jim]

@squeegee

What a frustrating article – they don’t say how big they used to think the Tunguska impactor was, vs how big they think it is now. its all about how they now have super-fly 'puters that model the energy transfer from the blast better. I’m admittedly on my first cuppa Joe – am I missing something?

No, I read the linked article looking for the same info, and it isn’t there. Awful match between headline and story.

[squeegee]

Its still an interesting article, Tuckerfan.

Hmm, it gets murkier. This article, inspired by that press release, quotes an unaffiliated scientist about size:

@National Geographic

Asteroid the Size of the White House… yadayadayada…“The data on objects of White House-size are pretty lousy,” said Hartmann

OK, was the old object estimate “White House” sized, or the new estimate? Or are we snipping off the West Wing in the 2nd estimate?

[Tuckerfan]

@Boyo Jim

No, I read the linked article looking for the same info, and it isn’t there. Awful match between headline and story.

Shhh! Scary headlines mean more money for NASA!

[squeegee]

Huh, Fox News of all places nails the missing detail:

@FoxNews.com

Specifically, he and his colleagues say it would have been a factor of three or four smaller in mass and perhaps 65 feet (20 meters) in diameter.

Which gives an initial size of 195-260 feet (unless I’m misunderstanding their use of “factor”).

ETA: I should learn to read – earlier in the story it says:

@FoxNews.com

In the last decade, researchers have conjectured the event was triggered by an asteroid exploding in Earth’s atmosphere that was roughly 100 feet wide (30 meters) and 560,000 metric tons in mass — more than 10 times that of the Titanic.

So that “factor” must refer to the mass, not the diameter.

[Boyo_Jim]

Wow, if a 50 foot rock will make a 5 megaton blast, I’m gonna expect one in my lifetime. There’s gotta be a gazillion of them out there.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@Mangetout

It was actually quite a big one - it just wore vertical stripes that just made it look smaller.

<Applause> Very nicely done.</Applause>